Tag: Canadian Muslim Terror

WESTERN LEADERS BLAME THE WEST FOR ISLAMIST VIOLENCE IN EUROPE & NORTH AMERICA

 

 

CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR JEWISH RESEARCH PRESENTS THE 28TH ANNUAL GALA 2016: Israel in Space: Beyond the Blue (and White) Horizon — “Technology, Economy, Security.” In commemoration of Ilan Ramon z”l. Keynote speaker: Tal Inbar, head of the Space Research Center, the Fischer Institute for Air & Space Strategic Studies. Mr. Inbar will discuss the topic “The Israeli Space Endeavor: Accomplishments and Future Challenges.” Join CIJR for this special event that will include a special video presentation by Rona Ramon (Ilan Ramon’s widow), greetings from the Canadian Space Agency, and more. This event will take place in Montreal, Thursday, April 14, and in Toronto, Tuesday, April 12, 2016. For more information and tickets, call 1-855-303-5544, email yunna@isranet.org, or register online at our website: www.isranet.org   

 

Canada Must Address the Threat of Jihad: Tarek Fatah, Toronto Sun, Mar. 15, 2016— By now, most of us are familiar with the sullen-looking face of Ayanle Hassan Ali, who, according to Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders, said he was inspired by Allah to kill infidels in his name.

France: Jihad Infecting Army, Police: Yves Mamou, Gatestone Institute, Mar. 16, 2016— According to a confidential memo, dated January 2016, from the anti-terrorist unit of the French interior ministry, France is already host to 8,250 radical Islamists (a 50% increase in one year).

How Long until Arabs and Muslims Rule, Britannia?: Phyllis Chesler, Arutz Sheva, Mar. 12, 2016— England: Shakespeare's heroic fairy realm; the world of Blake, Milton, Keats, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Austen, the Brontes, George Eliot, Charles Dickens, and Virginia Woolf.

Islamism Responsible for More U.S. Murders than 'Right-Wing' Extremism: Johanna Markind, Independent Journal Review, Jan. 14, 2016— Every murder is a tragedy, for the victims, their families, and their friends, and that remains true no matter who killed them or why.

 

On Topic Links

 

The Knife and the Message: The Roots of the New Palestinian Uprising: Hirsh Goodman and Yossi Kuperwasser, JCPA, 2016

Why the Boko Haram Survivors Need Our Support: Harriet Lamb & Kimairis Toogood, Globe & Mail, Mar. 9, 2016

To Maintain Supply of Sex Slaves, ISIS Pushes Birth Control: Rukmini Callimachi, New York Times, Mar. 12, 2015

Terrorist Groups Intensify Targeting of Children for Jihad: Abha Shankar, IPT, Mar. 10, 2015

 

 

                CANADA MUST ADDRESS THE THREAT OF JIHAD

Tarek Fatah        

            Toronto Sun, Mar. 15, 2016

 

By now, most of us are familiar with the sullen-looking face of Ayanle Hassan Ali, who, according to Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders, said he was inspired by Allah to kill infidels in his name. What may be the latest chapter in Canada's brush with Islamist extremism happened around 3:00 pm Monday. According to Saunders, Ali, 27, entered a military recruitment centre in a Department of National Defence building in Toronto, pulled out a knife and stabbed a uniformed officer at the front desk. He then tried to get past the desk but was tackled by a group of military officers.

 

One soldier was cut while stopping the suspect, according to Saunders. The two people injured suffered non-life-threatening injuries and were treated in hospital. Toronto's police chief said this incident would have been far more serious had it not been for a group of soldiers who stepped in and grappled the attacker to the ground.

 

Authorities were initially reluctant to reveal either the name of the attacker or the Islamic dimension to the incident. Even though the alleged attacker was arrested and witnesses told police they heard him say Allah had told him to kill, authorities were initially reluctant to release the name of the attacker or the precise words used in the attack. The fact the alleged attacker was likely a Muslim Canadian gave it a political dimension and, like the rest of the world, the police seemed uneasy about mentioning this.

 

It took a number of hours before police released the alleged attacker's name and the Islamic dimension to the incident. Saunders told a press conference on Tuesday that Ali said in the wake of the attack, "Allah told me to do this, Allah told me to come here and kill people."

 

This is not the first time we've heard reports of invoking Allah to justify murder. Earlier this month, a Muslim woman in Moscow beheaded a child in her care and told police Allah had asked her to behead the child. What is common in such incidents is that governments, police, and media are reluctant and hesitant to call a spade a spade.

 

Last week, I was in Delhi attending the World Global Conference where prominent former world leaders spoke, but not one publicly recognized the elephant in the room. From former prime minister of France Dominique de Villepin, to former president of Nigeria Olusegun Obasanjo, every aspect of international affairs and trade was addressed, but not the threat international jihad poses to humanity.

 

De Villepin criticized military attempts to defeat Islamic State and other terrorists, claiming the fault was with Western nations. He told the conference: "The western world is dominating the planet. One of the most important problems of today is the imbalance of power." This "blame the West" narrative came up at another session of the conference, where municipal officials from the Netherlands and Belgium gave no hint of the jihadi terror brewing across Europe.

 

I was in a state of shock at the ostrich-like attitude of Europe's leaders. When my turn to speak came, I reminded the audience and my fellow speakers the threat posed by jihadis seeking Islamic supremacy was real and will not go away. It was as if I had touched a raw nerve in the audience as they cheered my suggestion Western elites seem to have lost the will to defend Western values. I was mobbed on stage by young men and women who thanked me for setting aside political correctness. We must do so in Canada as well.                                                                        

 

Contents

FRANCE: JIHAD INFECTING ARMY, POLICE

          Yves Mamou

    Gatestone Institute, Mar. 16, 2016

           

According to a confidential memo, dated January 2016, from the anti-terrorist unit of the French interior ministry, France is already host to 8,250 radical Islamists (a 50% increase in one year). Some of these Islamists have gone to Syria to join the Islamic State (IS); others have infiltrated all levels of society, starting with the police and the armed forces.

 

A leaked confidential memo from the Department of Public Security, published by Le Parisien, details 17 cases of police officers radicalized between 2012 and 2015. Particularly noted were the police officers who listen to and broadcast Muslim chants while on patrol. Some of these police officers have openly refused to protect synagogues or to observe a minute of silence to commemorate the deaths of victims of terrorist attacks.

 

In addition, the police were alerted to a policewoman who incited terrorism on Facebook, and called her police uniform a "filthy rag of the Republic" while wiping her hands on it. In January 2015, immediately after the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the Hypercacher kosher supermarket in Vincennes, which had left 17 people dead, she wrote on her Facebook page: "Masked attack led by Zionist cowards… They need to be killed." That police officers are armed and have access to police databases only intensifies anxiety.

 

Although police headquarters in Paris claims that these cases are rare, they have decided to review on a weekly basis any behavior that oversteps the principle of separation of church and state, such as that of Muslim officers who appear to be leaning toward radicalization. Patrice Latron, who manages the office of the Paris police prefect, told Le Parisien that these phenomena are "very marginal."

 

The police are not the only ones who are anxious; the French military is concerned as well. There are no statistics for the number of Muslim soldiers in the French armed forces, but it is commonly thought that there are many, and that they are vulnerable to Islamist influences, given that France in engaged militarily in Africa, against Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and against the Islamic State in the Middle East. Since the Charlie Hebdo attack in January 2015, however, France's largest military operation has been on national soil: 10,000 armed soldiers are now deployed in France to protect synagogues, Jewish schools, train and subway stations, and also some mosques — to show Muslims that the French Republic does not see them as enemies. Their mission is no longer to be simply a complementary force but, as Le Figaro explained, to "deploy, on a permanent basis, interior military operations."

 

As early as 2013, during the fifth national security parliamentary conference, Colonel Pascal Rolez, adjunct to the assistant director of the counter-intervention unit of the Defense Security Protection Department (DPSD), declared, "We are witnessing an increase in radicalization among the French military, notably since the Merah affair." Recall that Mohammed Merah, a young French Muslim, murdered three French soldiers in Toulouse and Montauban, as well as murdering four French Jews at a school in Toulouse. In 2012, Mohammed Merah, a French Muslim, murdered three French soldiers, as well as four French Jews at a school. Today, with many cases of French Muslim soldiers and police becoming radicalized, the security services worry about the risk of "having agents of security forces attack their colleagues."

 

In order to identify members of the armed forces who are being radicalized, the DPSD takes into account changes in dress, recurrent sick leave, travel, or theft of supplies or materiel. Since the January 2015 attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the kosher supermarket in Paris, the media have noted several indications of radicalization in the French army.

 

On January 21, 2015, the radio station RFI announced that about 10 French soldiers deserted and joined the Jihadist fight in Syria and Iraq. Jean-Yves Le Drian, Defense Minister, has confirmed this, although with the caveat that these are "extremely rare" cases. Apparently, one of these veterans holds the position of "emir" in Deir Ezzor in Syria, and leads a group of around 10 French combatants whom he has personally trained. The other French deserters are explosives experts or paratroopers; some come from commando units in the French Foreign Legion…

 

On March 6, 2016, a "radicalized" military veteran, Manuel Broustail, was arrested while getting off a plane in Morocco. According to the French newspaper, Presse Ocean, Broustail was carrying in his suitcase a machete, four kitchen knives, two pocket knives, a retractable baton, a black hood, and a gas canister. A French military veteran and convert to Islam, Broustail had previously been placed under long-term house arrest in Angers (Maine-et-Loire), days after the horrific attacks in Paris, in which 130 people were murdered. Discharged from the army in 2014, he had been under surveillance by French security agencies. The media seem concerned that such a person, carrying such weapons, could walk through airport security controls, board a plane and leave the country…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

Contents

HOW LONG UNTIL ARABS AND MUSLIMS RULE, BRITANNIA?

Phyllis Chesler    

                                                Arutz Sheva, Mar. 12, 2016

 

England: Shakespeare's heroic fairy realm; the world of Blake, Milton, Keats, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Austen, the Brontes, George Eliot, Charles Dickens, and Virginia Woolf. England: The country of William Wilberforce, who successfully fought to abolish the slave trade; the land of the bravest suffrage movement anywhere; Churchill's own country – that fair and glorious Kingdom is still there but it is also fraying, fading away.

 

I've just returned from a visit to this storied Isle. I saw the most sublime production of The Tempest at The Sam Wanamaker/Globe Theater; a wondrous production of As You Like It at the National Theater; and a riveting performance of Bellini's opera about the Druid priestess, Norma, at the Coliseum. Every seat was filled by Brits of all ages. High culture still lives on there. But London is no longer as I first encountered it in 1961, or again in 1969, or even in 1989.

 

Now, all London only dares whisper about the Arab and Muslim takeover of their city. Many of the best luxury hotels are owned by the Sultan of Brunei and various other wealthy foreign Muslims, as is the historic department store Harrods. (Dodi Al-Fayed's father, an Egyptian, bought it long ago when he envisioned his son marrying Princess Diana, the mother of the future King of England).

 

The best townhouses on Park Lane, in Hyde Park, Belgravia, Mayfair, and Knightsbridge now belong to Arab embassies, oil-rich sheiks, and the occasional Russian oligarch. Londoners who still "take tea" in the lobbies of the grand hotels tell me in soft, resigned voices that "this is how it is and there is nothing that can be done about it. Speak out and you will fall into immediate disfavor." I know several exceptionally gallant, truth-telling thinkers and writers in London who are now blacklisted, censored, their powers curtailed. They dared tell the truth about how biased against America and Israel the British media and professoriate are – and how irrationally they favor both Islam and Islamism.

 

However, as one life-long Londoner pointed out to me: "Harrods, which is also owned by Arabs, (al-Fayed sold it to Qatar), loses business nine months of the year and only survives because Arabs come on shopping expeditions in the summer to escape the desert heat." London's Fortum and Mason's, the most luxurious store in the world, now has its first stand-alone satellite store in Dubai. A limousine driver tells me that he routinely picks up exceedingly short fur coats that cost $65,000.00 for Arab women and that "once, a Saudi Prince left 3 million pounds in the boot (trunk) of my car. He completely forgot about it."

 

A professor from Oxford comes down to visit me. She tells me about the "Asian (Pakistani) grooming gangs" in Oxford and about how 370 very young Caucasian infidel girls were pimped out by these gangs in Oxford alone: Finally, after many years, the pimps were arrested and sentenced and the failure of the police to stop them was excoriated in open court. The English Defense League mounted a brave, civil rights protest right in front of the police station. The police cordoned them off, surrounded them with barking dogs and a line of police officers who let no one near enough to hear what they had to say. And then they loosed the Anti-Fascist League against them who came rushing down the street, hollering 'Nazi, fascist scum.' As Orwell understood, not all speech is equal.

 

The streets are filled with women in heavy hijab, in the niqab (face mask), and in black, burqa-like body bags. As I have written many times before, I have no quarrel with head coverings, but suggest that the West must draw the line at face masks and sensory deprivation isolation chambers, which burqas truly are. These "covered" women are flying the flag of jihad, of a barbaric version of patriarchy – which is now increasingly ensconced within Britain's gates. I have no quarrel with head coverings, but the West must draw the line at face masks and isolation chambers.

 

The West's dependence on Big Oil, together with its own blind commitment to cultural sensitivity, an allegedly anti-racist tolerance for the barbarian "other," and fearfulness about the consequences of speaking out have together brought this about. Some say that just as England once colonized the Middle East, the Indian sub-continent, Central Asia, and the Far East, the favor is now being returned; the Islamic world is giving the colonizing Mother Country a taste of its own well deserved medicine. Tragically, this means that infidel women are sexual prey; that their rape, sexual harassment, and sexual slavery are being done quite openly, publicly – much like in the Muslim world. It means that the luxury hotels all offer a "halal" option; that certain British government offices are run as Sharia enterprises.

 

The British nationalists and the Islamists agree on one thing and one thing only: That the Jews are the greatest oppressors and conspirators in the world; that "Palestine" is the most oppressed (non-) country in the whole wide world; and that this must be screamed out loud in the mosques, on the streets, in the media, and in the universities. Please read Carol Gould and Melanie Phillips for starters if you have not already done so. Recently, I wrote about a British documentary made possible by the hard work of a Turkish-born nun, Sister Hatune Dogan. She opened every door for the British filmmakers, gentled the sex slaves whom she and her networks had rescued from ISIS and translated their words for the filmmaker…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

           

 

Contents

                       

      ISLAMISM RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE U.S. MURDERS

THAN 'RIGHT-WING' EXTREMISM                                                   

            Johanna Markind

Independent Journal Review, Jan. 14, 2016

 

Every murder is a tragedy, for the victims, their families, and their friends, and that remains true no matter who killed them or why. That being said, the current administration has persistently worked to focus attention away from Islamist violence and toward right-wing violence and gun control. President Obama's announced executive action plan regarding firearms is the latest salvo in the effort, which has been picked up by media and think tanks friendly to the administration.

 

After the Charleston church attack, the president quoted Martin Luther King, saying we must be concerned with "the philosophy that produced the murderers." After the Colorado Planned Parenthood attack, Obama warned not to "demonize" the victim organization. After the Boston marathon bombing, he warned people against rushing to judgment "about the motivations of these individuals" (in other words, not to demonize the perpetrators) or "entire groups of people." His administration labeled the 2009 Fort Hood attack "workplace violence." With few exceptions, the president attributes ideological motives to non-Islamist mass casualty attacks, and non-ideological motives to Islamist attacks.

 

Obama has focused attention away from Islamist violence and toward right-wing violence and gun control. Last June, the New America Foundation (NAF) – whose president, Anne-Marie Slaughter, formerly held a policy position in the administration – released a study purportedly showing "right-wing" extremism had killed more Americans than "jihadist attacks" i.e., Islamist violence, since 9/11. The study, and media coverage of it, implied popular concern about Islamist violence was overblown, because "the main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists." The study misleadingly implied that the threat of Muslim violence is less severe than other threats. Preliminarily, the list ignores other types of terrorism.

 

The list of "right wing" murders mixes several different ideologies, including various types of racism, such as white supremacist, neo-Nazi, anti-black, and anti-Semitic (30), plus anti-government (15), anti-abortion (4), and anti-homosexual (2) beliefs. Three murders had both racist and anti-government motivations; the above numbers double-count them.

 

By contrast, the list of "jihadist" murders reflects a single ideology, that of radical Islam or Islamism. It may be incomplete. For example, on February 5, 2013, Yusuf Ibrahim beheaded two Copts in New Jersey. In October 2002, Beltway snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo killed ten people. There are indications these murders were motivated by Islamism. Even excluding the twelve Ibrahim and Muhammad-Malvo killings, at least 45 murders since 9/11 were motivated by Islamism, making it the ideology responsible for more deaths than any other in the US.

 

Furthermore, if we take as expansive a view of Muslim violence as NAF took of "right-wing" violence, we should include victims of the barbaric practice of "honor killings" – killing someone, usually a woman, who allegedly brought shame on her family. Some have Islamist overtones. For example, in July 2002, Alim Hassan killed his wife, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law, reportedly because the wife refused to convert from Hinduism to Islam. Since 9/11, there have been at least twelve honor killings in the US. A May 2015 report funded by and submitted to the US Department of Justice (DOJ) estimated that there are 23-27 honor killings in the US each year.

 

The NAF study implies that law enforcement should devote more resources to right-wing extremism than Islamism. Adding known honor-killing victims to NAF's list, Muslim violence has accounted for at least 57 deaths since 9/11. Of course, if we add in the 2,977 fatalities from 9/11, that number would be 3,034.

 

The NAF study and related coverage implied law enforcement should devote more resources to "right-wing" extremism than Islamist violence. That seems consistent with administration policy. For instance, recent DOJ grants to study domestic radicalization required recipients to study several types of extremism, given that the "majority of studies… focused on al-Qaida and other Islamic-inspired violent extremists at the detriment to… other violent extremist ideologies." It is probably true that more government resources could be devoted to preventing "right-wing attacks," and the public should be mindful of the dangers. It is certainly true that preventing Islamist attacks deserves the lion's share of government resources.

 

That is apparent from NAF's own data. Its list of "Terror Plots" since 9/11 notes over 150 Islamist plots. It lists but a single "right-wing" plot; presumably the list is incomplete, if only because NAF's list of "right-wing" fatalities identified several other incidents. The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies 56 incidents of "right-wing" terrorism between April 1, 2009 and February 1, 2015. Approximately 92 of the Islamist incidents identified by NAF occurred during the same time period. Fortunately, most were foiled, or the casualties would be much higher. NAF also identifies 499 total "extremists," of whom 182 are "nonjihadist" and 317 – or 75% more – are Islamist…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

 

On Topic

 

The Knife and the Message: The Roots of the New Palestinian Uprising: Hirsh Goodman and Yossi Kuperwasser, JCPA, 2016—The latest wave of Palestinian violence against Jews is something new, an insidious wave of seemingly un-orchestrated attacks, perpetrated by unlikely assailants, and generally untraceable to any particular organization.

Why the Boko Haram Survivors Need Our Support: Harriet Lamb & Kimairis Toogood, Globe & Mail, Mar. 9, 2016 —It was the Twitter campaign that kindled global compassion: #BringBackOurGirls focused on the shocking fate of 276 girls abducted in Chibok, Nigeria, in April, 2014. Some escaped, but most are still missing.

To Maintain Supply of Sex Slaves, ISIS Pushes Birth Control: Rukmini Callimachi, New York Times, Mar. 12, 2015—Locked inside a room where the only furniture was a bed, the 16-year-old learned to fear the sunset, because nightfall started the countdown to her next rape. During the year she was held by the Islamic State, she spent her days dreading the smell of the ISIS fighter’s breath, the disgusting sounds he made and the pain he inflicted on her body.

Terrorist Groups Intensify Targeting of Children for Jihad: Abha Shankar, IPT, Mar. 10, 2015—Children have become a key target group for recruitment by terrorist groups who are increasingly turning to social media to showcase their successful efforts in indoctrinating them for jihad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

                        

 

 

 

                  

 

 

 

THE YEAR THAT WAS: AS GAZA CRISIS DREW MISGUIDED EU RESPONSE, TERRORIST ATTACKS IN ISRAEL, CANADA & AUSTRALIA COINCIDED WITH RISE OF ISLAMIC STATE

We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to:  Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station  H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 

 

Contents:

 

“Slaves Seeking Slavery”: the Alliance of Secular Leftists and Islamists: Paul Merkley, Bayview Review, Dec. 17, 2014— Anyone feeling the need for a quick boost of morale should take a quick look at the site…

Israel Looks on Europe With Dismay: Barry Shaw, Jerusalem Post, Dec. 22— Political tremors are being felt across Europe.

After Synagogue Attack, Jerusalem’s New Holy War: Daniel Gordis, National Post, Nov. 20, 2014 — There are terror attacks, and there are pogroms.

The Ethics of Protective Edge: Asa Kasher, Jewish Review of Books, Fall, 2014— Even my loves are measured by wars,” wrote the Israeli poet Yehuda Amichai:

 

On Topic Links

 

Domestic Terror Threat Becomes Real for Canada: Alistair MacDonald & Rita Trichur, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 22, 2014

Top 10 Worst U.N. Decisions Of 2014: Buzzfeed, Dec. 21, 2014

Europe's Year of the Jihadist:  Abigail R. Esman, IPT News, Dec. 29, 2014

Research on the Islamic State: Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, Middle East Forum, Nov.-Dec., 2014

 

                                        

“SLAVES SEEKING SLAVERY”:

THE ALLIANCE OF SECULAR LEFTISTS AND ISLAMISTS                                                          

Paul Merkley                                   

Bayview Review, Dec. 17, 2014

           

Anyone feeling the need for a quick boost of morale should take a quick look at the site http://www.markhumphreys.com/left.html where he can watch an incredibly brave man, Robert Spencer, the Director of Jihad Watch, as he speaks to a crowd of secular-left and Islamist groups at a Pax Europe rally in Suttgart, Germany, in June 2011: You are already subjugated! You are already their useful idiots…. You are out here in their service. And you think your fight is for freedom. You are fighting for you own slavery! … You are fighting for the destruction of all the freedoms that you enjoy. You are fighting for the defeat of your own selves, of your own lives. You are slaves seeking slavery. You are the most foolish, you are the most evil, foolish people on Earth…. Shame on you!” Deep-thinkers in the crowd tried to drown our Spencer’s message by throwing bottles, ice, eggs, and manure at the stage.

 

By now, we are all well-acquainted with this theatre: massive rallies throughout the Western world, organized and manned by leading lights of the European secular-Left and Muslim activists. They appear arm-in-arm under banners denouncing the Apartheid Zionist Entity and its brutality towards innocent Palestinians. They call down shame upon the pro-Israel bias of Canada’s government, the evil legacy of the Crusades and the “Islamophobia” that informs the perception that they are out of line with our parochial Western values and legal traditions.

 

The spokesmen assigned by these groups to be interviewed by our television networks lose no time in getting to the message: that everything that Muslims suffer today at the hands of godless Westerners and their Zionist co-oppressors could be averted if we would only practise the toleration towards minorities that made Arab empire – all of them long gone – great and prosperous and enlightened. Jews and Christians were “Protected” communities under Muslim Empire, they declaim. But they never pause to ask “Protected Against Whom?”

 

The governing reality of inter-religious relations during the centuries of Muslim empire was the dhimma. This was the pact, or contract, under which conquered “People of the Book” (Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians) acknowledged the inferiority of their religion, and accepted to live under the command of their communities’ leaders – who, in turn, agreed to supervise the people’s adherence to specified limitations on their lives and to report on their compliance to the Muslim masters. Dhimmi people (that is, all Christians and Jews) paid a heavy tax (jizyah) from which Muslims were exempt. They were forbidden to own land– which greatly limited the economic prospects of the Islamic masses. Their clothing was restricted to certain types and styles, and on it they wore distinguishing badges – a symbol of a monkey for the Jews, a symbol of a pig for the Christians – so that they lived without dignity. The “protection” which the Muslims extended towards the Jews and Christians was of the sort dispensed by the mafia — from themselves, not from some third party – as all others were converted or liquidated. It is this blessed state of affairs that the newly-proclaimed Caliph has in mind as he calls the Christians who come under the mercies of his Caliphate in Syria and Iraq —and then eventually everywhere – to renounce Christ, and convert – or die.

 

But there is a third category, this one not eligible for the blessings of dhimmitude : these are Harbis, non-Muslims who do not meet the required for living as a community under Protection (dhimmitude)—those who are neither Muslims, Jews or Christians, all those who profess other religions, or who profess no religion at all – (that is, those whom we call atheists” or “agnostics.”) These uncontracted trash have no right to live at all – anywhere. Responding to the beheading of James Foley by ISIS, Muslim cleric Hussein bin Mahmoud presumes to speak for the authentic Islamic tradition, noting that, under Islamic law, Foley was a harbi, i.e. a non-Muslim whose life was not protected by an agreement of protection.

 

Millions of Muslims have been killed, tortured and driven from their homes; tens of thousands of Muslim women have had their honor violated and have been sexually abused by the Americans – yet people are weeping over a Christian American harbi infidel who entered the Islamic State, knowing full well what the Islamic State is, and without a pact [of protection]. Were the soldiers of the Islamic State supposed to pat this American harbi on the back and smile at him? All scholars, without exception, agree on the permissibility of killing a harbi infidel, and agree that his blood and property are fair game. Most of them [also] agree on the permissibility of killing him if he is taken prisoner. So where does this condemnation of the IS come from?… Many Muslims are influenced by the West’s false views and its repulsive ideas, which are exported to the Islamic nation in order to weaken it and change the perception of its youth so that [the youth] become cowardly and subdued and abandon the means of power and terror, and thus create a generation that does not know fighting or the cutting of necks…A moment’s thought will bring to mind that this category of harbi embraces at last one-half of humanity today – those who are not Muslims, Jews, or Christians; and one’s second thought must be that within this company must be included perhaps a third of those who are citizens of Canada…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

 

Paul Merkley is a CIJR Academic Fellow

 

                                                                     

Contents   

                                                                                                     

   

                            

ISRAEL LOOKS ON EUROPE WITH DISMAY     

Barry Shaw                                                                                                                            

Jerusalem Post, Dec. 22, 2014

 

Political tremors are being felt across Europe. In Britain, we see the rise of an emerging independence party, UKIP, which is euroskeptic and takes a corrective line on the UK’s unbridled open-door immigration policy. In France, the Socialist François Hollande looks likely to be replaced by the center- right Nicolas Sarkozy. The left-wing Swedish government barely lasted three months before being forced to abandon a failed leadership. This gave it sufficient time to rush through a “Palestine” vote which may be overturned by an incoming center-right government. Polls show that center-right parties would win the popular vote in Norway and Denmark if elections were held now.

 

Across Europe, voters are objecting to poor economic and immigration policies. They are offended by the rise of crime perpetrated by immigrants they had welcomed into their once decent countries. Cultural changes are rendering their countries unrecognizable. One prominent reason for the political swing has been politicians pandering to Islamic sensitivities at home. This is causing pause and division among their populations. The recent outbreak of symbolic parliamentary voting for an ill-defined Palestinian state is one outward manifestation of politicians catering to a rising constituency against which their grassroots citizenry are rebelling. The swing in the polls reflects a desire to return to an old patriotism of long-lost national values, lost in the mire of multiculturalism brought on by uncontrolled immigration against a background of recession and poor economic performance.

 

They are in search of a once-was national character. A yearning to return to the past will however not save them from the reality that now exists. Nevertheless, we will see European nations shift, possibly polarize, as populations demand that their voices be heard above the growing needs and demands of strong minority and troublesome migrants and left-wing anarchists. But will these changes come in time to save a sinking Europe from the misguided, immoral decisions being taken by a largely Socialist and fractured continent? One nation outside of Europe that is suffering from misguided European policies is Israel. Israelis look at Europe as a continent that feels the need to cater to an unruly Muslim population that offers their politicians votes but on the other hand can, and does, cause problems and violence if its causes are not addressed. This has expressed itself in displays of violent anti-Semitism that leave local Jews vulnerable.

 

Countries, one after another, fall prey to the lobbying of left-wing fringe groups allied to a Palestinian agenda by the introduction of anti-Israel resolutions. One after another, nations fall like dominoes, not wishing to appear out of step with an ill-considered mantra of Palestinianism that contradicts European commitments that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be settled by the two parties involved, without any external or unilateral moves that may endanger or foreclose such an outcome. The Oslo Accords, signed on the White House lawn between Israel and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, called for mutual recognition, something that is totally lacking from Hamas, the leading political body of Palestinian Arabs, or from the rejectionist Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority. The notion of “two states for two peoples” has been rejected by the Palestinians. Europe has ignored this. Why? An end to terrorism is yet another condition for peace. Can anyone honestly say that this has been achieved in light of the grotesque Palestinian rocket attacks that erupted out of the Gaza Strip last summer? Or the horrendous sight of Palestinian terrorists coming out of the ground near Israeli farms and villages, intent to capture or kill huge numbers of Israeli civilians including women and children? Yet, on December 17, the European General Court removed Hamas from the EU list of terrorist organizations. This just days after the Hamas leadership celebrated in Gaza by parading its rockets and suicide bombers, vowing to eradicate the Jewish State of Israel.

 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu summed up the feeling of all Israelis and Jews: “It seems that too many in Europe, on whose soil six million Jews were slaughtered, have learned nothing. But we in Israel, we’ve learned. We’ll continue to defend our people and our state against the forces of terror and tyranny and hypocrisy.” The statement was aimed squarely at a Europe that fails to support the only liberal democracy in the region but bends over backwards to establish a state that will, in all likelihood, be headed by an Islamic terrorist group or by a rejectionist body with a shared motivation to remove Israel as part of a “liberating Palestine” agenda. Europeans need to be asked: If Hamas is not a terrorist organization, what is? As European parliaments fall, one by one, to a “Palestine” vote, and its court cannot understand what constitutes a terrorist organization if it is cloaked in Palestinian clothing, no other issue has unified the Israeli parliament like the European court’s decision. Wall to wall condemnation was heard across Israel’s divergent political parties against the European court, whose decision demonstrates the loss of a moral path, in the words of Bayit Yehudi leader Naftali Bennett…Clearly, Europe does not have the stomach, or the political will, to fight Islamic terrorism with all its force, if at all. As Knesset speaker Yuli Edelstein said, the European Union “must have lost its mind!” This is clearly the case. The question is whether the winds of political change will arrive in Europe in time to save it and Israel from the damaging tsunami of current political moves.

                                                                       

Contents        

                                                                              

 

             

         

AFTER SYNAGOGUE ATTACK, JERUSALEM’S NEW HOLY WAR                                                                 

Daniel Gordis                                                                                                                

National Post, Nov. 20, 2014

 

There are terror attacks, and there are pogroms. The attack at a Jerusalem synagogue … that killed four rabbis was a pogrom. It was an attack motivated not by politics but by religious hatred; it was directed not at Israelis but at Jews. The killers were armed with hatchets and guns instead of suicide belts, and they came not to kill Jews but to butcher them. The images are horrific: a prayer shawl in a pool of blood; a prayer book turned crimson, from which one of the victims had been worshiping as he was killed; and more haunting, the hand of a dead man, still wearing his phylacteries, soaking in his own blood. Witnesses said a worshiper’s arm, also wrapped in a leather prayer strap, had been hacked off its torso.

 

To Jews schooled in Jewish history, these images are not new; they are the images of a destiny from which Israel had been intended to redeem the Jews. Consider this description of the Kishinev Pogrom in 1903: “[One young boy], blinded in one eye from youth, begged for his life with the offer of sixty rubles; taking this money, the leader of the crowd …  gouged out [his] other eye, saying “You will never again look upon a Christian child.” Nails were driven through heads; bodies, hacked in half; bellies split open and filled with feathers. Women and girls were raped, and some had their breasts cut off.” Jews knew that sort of hatred could not be combated with reason. Violence of that sort was not motivated by economics, by contested territory or even by history. It was, they understood, malignant Jew-hatred at its core, driven by a millenniums-old sickness from which Europe would never recover. The 20th century was to have been the century of reason, of banishing ancient hatreds. But when the Kishinev poison was unleashed with the new century already under way (they had no inkling, of course, of how horrific the century would become), they knew they needed to flee.

 

At the Sixth Zionist Congress in 1903, Theodor Herzl, the father of modern political Zionism, evoked Kishinev not as an event, but as a condition. “Kishinev exists wherever … [Jews’] self-respect is injured and their property despoiled because they are Jews. Let us save those who can still be saved!” The Jews, he insisted, needed a state of their own. He was not the first to say this. When the assassination of Czar Alexander II in 1881 unleashed a similar burst of murderous anti-Jewish violence, an earlier Zionist, Yehuda Leib Pinsker, wrote that “the misfortunes of the Jews are due, above all, to their lack of desire for national independence; … if they do not wish to exist forever in a disgraceful state … they must become a nation.” As long as the Jew was landless and stateless, Pinsker argued as Herzl would once again a decade and a half later, the Jew would persist in a “disgraceful state.” He, too, argued that there was no choice — the Jews needed to flee Europe.

 

So flee they did, by the many millions. Most went to America, but some newly committed Zionists went to Palestine where they hoped to build a nation-state for the Jews. The Italians had Italy, the Poles had Poland and the Germans had Germany. Each had a language, a history, a culture. So, too, did the Jews; what they lacked was a state, and the price of that statelessness, they believed, was Kishinev. The Jewish State was supposed to put a stop to those images. Yes, a tragic and bloody conflict over land erupted, but Jews — later called Israelis — believed the conflict could be resolved. Israel would sign treaties with its Arab neighbors, sometimes giving up land (as with the Sinai Desert in the case of Egypt) and sometimes not (since Jordan essentially required no meaningful territorial concession). When Palestinian nationalism emerged and then became the world’s darling, left and centrist Israelis remained unfazed. This was a conflict over territory, they reasoned; when the Palestinians were ready to live side by side, Israel would cede more land, and the conflict would be over.

 

But the images of Jewish bodies hacked to death on a blood- soaked synagogue floor are about a hatred too deep to be assuaged by territorial concessions. Those images tell Israelis that although they fled Europe and have built their national home, they are still assailed by the same venomous loathing they had sought to escape. This time, 7 million Jewish Israelis have nowhere to run. To where would they go? While Hamas has praised the butchery and Palestinians have celebrated by handing out candies to children and posing with hatchets and photographs of the killers, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for restraint, urging Jews not to take the law into their own hands. Yet while Netanyahu seeks restraint on the part of private Israelis, he is unlikely to show restraint himself. For if this horror cannot be stopped, the fundamental premise of Zionism and the promises that it bore for the Jewish people — that the butchery was over — will be upended. And no Israeli prime minister can willingly allow that to happen on his or her watch.           

                                            

Contents     

                                                                                                    

                                          

 

THE ETHICS OF PROTECTIVE EDGE                                                                                                        

Asa Kasher                                                                                                         

Jewish Review of Books, Fall, 2014   

 

Even my loves are measured by wars,” wrote the Israeli poet Yehuda Amichai: I am saying this happened after the Second World War. We met a day before the Six-Day War. I’ll never say before the peace ’45–’48 or during the peace ’56–’67. I first heard air raid sirens during Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, and I heard them most recently in August, during Operation Protective Edge. In 1948, an Egyptian plane dropped bombs on the center of Rishon Lezion, where I then lived; more recently the threat took the familiar form of rockets launched by Hamas from the Gaza Strip and intercepted by the Iron Dome system far above my head in another town near Tel Aviv. During the 1948 air raid, I saw my father, at the time an officer in a northern infantry brigade, treating a wounded female soldier, who died soon thereafter. She was the first casualty of war that I personally witnessed. Recently, my 17-year-old granddaughter Ahiraz encountered her first casualty when a soldier who had been a member of her neighborhood scout troop fell in the present operation.

 

As Amichai says, our lives in Israel are marked by the wars through which we have lived. In addition to living through the many wars, actions, and operations of the last 66 years as both a civilian and a soldier, I have also spent a great deal of time thinking about the ethics of fighting them, both in official capacities—when, for example, I led the writing of and co-authored the IDF’s code of ethics in the 1990s—and in an unofficial one, as a commentator. As I write this, in late August, rockets are once again being fired from Gaza, and Operation Protective Edge has resumed after another brief ceasefire. Although—or perhaps precisely because—hostilities are ongoing, it is important to re-examine the challenges that terrorists in general and Hamas in particular pose to the Israel Defense Forces and to do so in light of first principles, both those of traditional  Just War doctrine and of specific Israeli military doctrine and values. Israel, like every other state, upholds the right and duty of self-defense. A state’s right to defend itself when attacked is just as unquestionable as an individual’s right to self-defense when attacked. This right is invoked on the level of international relations and is confirmed by Just War doctrine, international law, and the United Nations charter, not to speak of common-sense ethics. The duty of self-defense, on the other hand, is the responsibility that a state has to protect its citizens. Thus, Israel has both the international right and the domestic duty to respond when Hamas attacks its citizens.

 

The second fundamental principle of the State of Israel in general and of the IDF in particular is the duty to respect human dignity. This means that people may never be treated as mere objects or instruments. Their liberty can be restricted only when there is a compelling justification for doing so. Note that this second principle extends not only to citizens or other persons under Israel’s effective control, such as visitors or foreign workers, but also to Palestinians in Gaza who pose no terrorist threat. It even comes into play with respect to terrorists themselves when kill-or-capture options are carefully considered. Nonetheless, as I have argued at greater length elsewhere, no state has or should shoulder as much responsibility for the safety of enemy civilians as it does for its own people. Special duties belong to the essence of relationships within a family, a community, and a state. These two fundamental principles of warfare are jointly applicable under all circumstances. During war or in the course of any other military activity, the principle of self-defense is what establishes the ends in question, namely an effective defense of the people and their state, while the second principle imposes restrictions on the means used in pursuit of those ends. Generally speaking, the latter principle requires ceaseless efforts to diminish or “alleviate the calamities of war,” to use a very old but still apt expression from the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Times of War, of Certain Explosive Projectiles.

 

Other democratic states share the basic principle of respect for human dignity and direct the activities of their military forces in accordance with it. It is, however, worthy of note that the IDF is the only military force of which I am aware that has included it among its explicitly stated values. Two of the values listed in its code of ethics, Ruach Tzahal, are those of respecting and preserving human life and the duty to retain “purity of arms,” that is to use the minimum force necessary to subdue the enemy. In the early 1990s, when I presented an early draft of the first such code to the IDF General Staff, then-Chief Lieutenant-General Ehud Barak and about 100 IDF groups of commanders, absolutely no one objected to the inclusion of these values. This is because they merely codified strongly entrenched parts of the IDF ethos. I have often been asked what is Jewish about the IDF code of ethics. In answering, I have always pointed to these two values, which are rooted in the Jewish religious and moral traditions of the sanctity of human life and of self-discipline.

 

It is not hard, however, to think of circumstances in which the principles of restraint and respect for human dignity in times of war might be disregarded. In his famous address to Parliament in 1940 Winston Churchill spoke of “Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.” But as much as such statements may once have thrilled and heartened people, they are now obsolete, not only for ethical reasons but for strategic ones. To grasp the nature of the change that has taken place in the character of war and its end-state, at least for Israel, compare the consequences of the Six-Day War with the consequences of the Second Lebanon War. In 1967, our enemies’ military forces were essentially destroyed. In Lebanon, on the other hand, we significantly diminished the military force of Hezbollah, but it could and actually did continue launching rockets at northern Israel for a time.

 

In the “new” wars of recent decades, victory has been replaced by the ideal of successfully accomplishing given missions. The missions of Operation Protective Edge were defined in the course of the fighting as the elimination of the threat to Israel created by the Hamas offensive tunnels and the reduction if not elimination of the threat that Hamas’ rockets pose to most parts of Israel…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

 

Contents           

 

On Topic

 

Domestic Terror Threat Becomes Real for Canada: Alistair MacDonald & Rita Trichur, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 22, 2014 —Long a target of extremist threats, Canada has for decades avoided foreign-linked terrorist killings on its soil.

Top 10 Worst U.N. Decisions Of 2014: Buzzfeed, Dec. 21, 2014—10. U.N. Elects Iran to Women’s Rights Commission

Europe's Year of the JihadistAbigail R. Esman, IPT News, Dec. 29, 2014—Among the trends of 2014 – "Gone, Girl," Lena Dunham, and $55,000 potato salad – was another the list-makers seem to have missed: it was also a very good year for Islamic jihad.

Research on the Islamic State: Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, Middle East Forum, Nov.-Dec., 2014

 

           

 

 

 

 

               

 

 

 

                      

                

                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Contents:         

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

 

 

Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org

AFTER THE OTTAWA PARLIAMENT ATTACK: ISLAMIST VIOLENCE HERE & ABROAD REMINDS US: “ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR EVIL TO PREVAIL IS FOR GOOD PEOPLE TO DO NOTHING”

We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to:  Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station  H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 

 

Contents:

 

In the Shadow of a Young Corporal’s Death, Canada’s Greatness Shines Through: Rex Murphy, National Post, Oct. 25, 2014 — Out of this dark week there has come very much that is good.

Under Siege, Egypt Looks For Allies: Zvi Mazel, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 27, 2014— Over the weekend, 30 Egyptian soldiers were killed and 31 wounded in one of the worst terrorist attacks in the past year in northern Sinai.

Parliamentary Recognition of Palestine – Legally, Historically and Politically Questionable : Amb. Alan Baker, JCPA, Oct. 27, 2014

‘Ehr Daw’ — They’re Here: Rabbi Shalom Lewis, Frontpage, Oct. 7, 2014 — I thought that maybe I’d start with a rendition of Paul McCartney’s plaintive masterpiece “Yesterday”…

On Topic Links

 

Terrorism Defies Definition: Daniel Pipes and Teri Blumenfeld, Washington Times, Oct. 23, 2014

Egypt Cancels Israel-Hamas Talks, Shutters Rafah, Plans Anti-Smuggling Wall After Mass Car Bombing: Dave Bender, Algemeiner, Oct. 26, 2014

The Role of Hamas and Fatah in the Jerusalem Disturbances: Pinhas Inbari, JCPA, Oct. 26, 2014

MPs 'Encouraged Hamas Terrorism' by Voting for Palestinian State Says Israel: David Blair, Telegraph, Oct. 24, 2014

 

                  

IN THE SHADOW OF A YOUNG CORPORAL’S DEATH,

CANADA’S GREATNESS SHINES THROUGH                                             

Rex Murphy                                                                                                                  

National Post, Oct. 25, 2014

 

Out of this dark week there has come very much that is good. And I am not just pointing to the very welcome spirit of concord the three political parties have, up to now, manifested in the Commons and outside. Nor the address of our three main political leaders, though again, their talks both in tone and content offered much to be regarded. Rather I am thinking of the unofficial moments, captured on video or in photographs, showing people acting so well, in moments of great distress or at some levels of real peril to themselves. Even after three days,  the very early scene of passersby, earnestly trying to care for Corporal Nathan Cirillo — this was but mere instants after his being shot — shimmers in the mind.

 

Everyone has seen that image, the huddle of people bent over him, and, as we have learned from news stories, even to his last breath assuring him that “he was loved.” It was very much the parable of the Good Samaritan in real and present time, only in Ottawa Wednesday morning, it wasn’t one Samaritan. There were at least four. Such loving attention, at a time when the scene was still in chaos and it was unknown how many shooters there might be, said so much more than the thousands of words we have heard. Even in the shadow of the young corporal’s death, it is not too much to say that this was a very gratifying moment — a tragic moment, but one worth honouring. All Canadians immediately recognized the actions of the corporal’s final companions as an example of how people should act at such a time, how we would wish to have acted. And how, heaven forbid, we may wish to be treated if it was us laying on that sacred ground, breathing our last breaths. We are, in part, very much the people we choose to admire, and our national character can, in some measure, be limned by the actions we choose to esteem. Our age, hag-ridden by the tinsel fame of hollow celebrity, calls for the counterbalance of real worth and real achievement being given deeper regard, of holding up those who neither have fame nor are seeking it, acting in casual nobility and with real care.

 

Canadians light on special people from everyday life who act with selflessness, or associate themselves with issues of genuine need, and place them in a kind of unofficial pantheon. They are our moral heroes. The most vivid example is perhaps that of Terry Fox, who Canadians still hold fresh and high in their regard even 30 years after his magnificent odyssey in rain, snow and glorious sunlight across the country. The country took to him, not only because of his mighty endurance at the very crest of his illness — which was a blazon all its own —  but just as much so because of the utter selflessness with which he spent his last days.

 

I see very much of the same thing in how swiftly and intensely the modest and unassuming person of Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers has found immediate home in the hearts and minds of everyone across the country. Of his pure bravery, most of us stand in awe. Bravery, or courage, as was said of old, is the cardinal virtue, as without it none of the other virtues can or will be exercised. Canadians took to Kevin Vickers, however, for reasons beyond even his courage. It was so much his manner. Here is a man to whom duty — a word I feel sometimes has slipped out of the vocabulary of our glib days — was as his life. His self-possession in the heat of an absolutely sudden crisis, his instantaneous response in a time of danger, and his visible awkwardness the next day when he was showered by the thunder of applause and tribute, left us gaping with admiration and affection.

 

We are always wondering if the days of sacrifice and full generosity are behind us. Every generation sees the one previous as somehow more stern and stoic, less caught by the trivia of position or wealth or power, than our own. We yearn for purpose and examples of those who live by codes of honour and duty. But, as we have seen, great men and women, in the sense of great I am underlining here, are still with us. And they carry the same mien, speak in the same un-self-regarding accents, as the men and women of yesterday. I think of Captain Sullenberger, who landed an Airbus loaded with passengers on the flowing waters of the Hudson River. Of how even after that unbelievable, harrowing descent and landing, he was reported as going through the cabin of the plane making sure everyone had gotten safely off, before he left the jet. He was another of those quiet, unassuming gentlemen who so quietly perform with a self-possession that takes our breath away, and who is almost surprised — and certainly uncomfortable — when half the world takes him in their hearts as special. Our man Vickers is such a fellow, a gentleman, a man of duty. He makes us proud as Canadians that he is one of ours. And that is a good thing for this country, for we are all, in part, who we choose to admire.

 

Then, of course, there are the two soldiers, Cpl. Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who was murdered in Quebec on Monday. Among our military their deaths have of course had special impact. And Canadians hold their military in a very special place. They are the institution we have chosen to admire. Cpl. Cirillo’s death, because of the whole drama of the day, and most particularly because of the symbolism of his place at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, has been the larger story. His youth, vitality and friendliness — which we see so vibrantly in the many online, newspaper and broadcast pictures of him — summoned the deepest response from all the country. One picture alone of his forlorn dogs, vainly awaiting his return, had more pathos than a thousand pages of Dickens. Cpl. Cirillo is now another enrolee in this country’s unofficial pantheon, the gallery of those very special individuals, we have chosen to stand as representatives of what, in an ideal world, we would all choose to be. To the most enduring question of ours — what does it mean to be Canadian? — the passersby who tended the soldier, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the young solider at the tomb, and WO Vincent, the career military man going about his business in the uniform he earned the right to wear, gives us the answer we need. It was a dark week, but one too that had more than its share of special light. We will remember our fallen, and the light that they shone.

 

                                                                       

Contents     

                                                                                                                                      

UNDER SIEGE, EGYPT LOOKS FOR ALLIES                                                      

Zvi Mazel                                                                                                            

Jerusalem Post, Oct. 27, 2014

 

Over the weekend, 30 Egyptian soldiers were killed and 31 wounded in one of the worst terrorist attacks in the past year in northern Sinai. President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi reacted with a stark declaration, saying terrorism was an existential threat and that Egypt will fight it till it is eradicated. Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis is at the forefront of Jihadi groups grimly determined to throw the country into chaos. The army is making an all-out effort to eliminate all Islamist terrorist movements, and claims to have killed some 600 insurgents and to have destroyed many of their strongholds, seizing huge amounts of arms and explosives – last week it estimated the number of underground tunnels blown up or closed at 1,875.

 

Those were heavy blows to the terrorists, but they are securely entrenched among the population in the north of the peninsula, and they can depend on their extensive networks of Beduin in the area. Furthermore, they are being reinforced by a steady stream of men and material coming through all Egypt’s borders. It can be said that to a certain extent, Egypt is under siege, with the Gaza Strip functioning as the logistic hub. Gaza has the capacity to develop and produce weapons, to package explosives and to train terrorists before infiltrating them to the peninsula through the tunnels, of which there are always enough left for that purpose.

 

However, an ever-growing number of fighters and ammunition are coming in through the borders with Libya and Sudan. The border between Egypt and Libya runs across 1,200 km. of deserts and mountains, making monitoring near impossible, the more so since strife-torn Libya is no longer functioning as a sovereign state. Its capital city has been partially taken over by Islamic and tribal militias, its parliament and its government have fled to Tobruk, not far from the Egyptian border. Many jihadi terrorists, among them some who came from Syria and Iraq, can be found all along that border. Dozens of Egyptians soldiers have been killed in recent months in a number of clashes with insurgents infiltrating from Libya. And if that was not enough, more arms and more rebels are coming in from Sudan, through its 400-km.- long border with Libya.

 

There could also be Iranian weapons still reaching the Sinai Peninsula. Iran is intent on destabilizing Egypt, even if it entails aiding extremist Sunni movements as it did with al-Qaida in the past. During the Mubarak era, extensive smuggling networks were left to grow in Egypt as a whole and in the Sinai Peninsula, in the mistaken belief that it was a problem for Israel alone. It was a costly mistake, for which Egypt is paying dearly. Sisi was confident he could depend on America’s assistance to fight the threat of terror. However, instead of cooperating with Cairo, the White House, still smarting over the ouster of former president Muhammad Morsi and of the Muslim Brothers, declared an embargo on arms for Egypt. The recent visit of the Egyptian president to Washington and his meeting with his American counterpart did not bring a thaw. Obama allegedly quizzed Sisi over human rights in Egypt. The Egyptian president retaliated by saying he would join the coalition against Islamic State but would not send troops, since they were badly needed to defend his country against terror. Relations between the two countries are still fraught, though America is now grudgingly dispatching ten Apache helicopters that were meant to have been delivered a year ago.

 

Deprived of the support of his country’s former staunchest ally, Sisi had to look elsewhere. He is in the process of setting up his own coalition with North African countries facing the threat coming from Libya, such as Sudan and Algeria. He is in close contact with the legal government of Libya, whose prime minister, Abdullah al-Thani came to Cairo in mid-October and signed a cooperation agreement between the two armies. Egypt will help train Libyan security forces and police, there will be joint border control, and cooperation will extend to exchange of intelligence. This was followed by steps on the ground. “Unidentified” planes bombed Tripoli airfield, held by Islamic and tribal militias. Various groups accused Egypt, and the White House was prompt to condemn the raids. Cairo denied that its forces intervened beyond its borders. It appears likely that the attack was not carried out by the Egyptian army, but probably by Libyan pilots taking off from Egyptian air fields flying Egyptians planes and planes from the Emirates. The Libyan army has now launched an all-out offensive against the Islamists with the help of former renegade general Khalifa Haftar and has retaken Benghazi – it is moving to reconquer Tripoli and restore order…

[To Read the Full Article  Click the Following Link—Ed.]              

                                                                                   

                                                                       

Contents            

                                                                                                                              

PARLIAMENTARY RECOGNITION OF PALESTINE –          

LEGALLY, HISTORICALLY AND POLITICALLY QUESTIONABLE                                                                           

Amb. Alan Baker,                                                                                     

JCPA, Oct. 27, 2014

 

On October 13, 2014, the British Parliament, in its House of Commons, adopted a resolution by a majority of 274 votes, with 12 opposing votes, that states: “That this House believes that the government should recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution.” Proponents of this curious resolution claimed that “recognizing Palestine as a state would be a symbolically important step towards peace.” The Labour Party shadow foreign secretary Ian Lucas even opined that the resolution would “strengthen the moderate voices among the Palestinians who want to pursue the path of politics, not the path of violence.” He went on to claim that “this is not an alternative to negotiations.  It is a bridge for beginning them.”

 

However, former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind disagreed and suggested such a move should not be adopted because it would be purely symbolic: “For me the most important question is what practical benefit would passing this resolution make?” he asked. “It might make us feel good. But recognizing a state should only happen when the territory in question has the basic requirements of a state.  And through no fault of the Palestinians that is not true at the moment and it seems to me that the resolution before us is premature as we do not have a Palestinian government.” A similar vote by the Upper House of the Irish Parliament, known as the “Seanad Eireann,” adopted on October 23, 2014, stated: “Seanad Eireann calls on the government to formally recognize the state of Palestine and do everything it can at the international level to help secure a viable two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” A similar position was put forward by the new prime minister of Sweden, Stefan Lofven, who stated in an inaugural address to the Swedish parliament on October 3, 2014: “The conflict between Israel and Palestine can only be solved with a two-state solution, negotiated in accordance with international law.  A two-state solution requires mutual recognition and a will to peaceful co-existence. Sweden will therefore recognize the state of Palestine.”

 

Analyzing these statements and votes logically, they would appear to be based on questionable legal, historic and political premises, as well as being in and of themselves self-contradictory and constituting, by their terms, a non-sequitor. As such, they would appear to be both ill-advised and based on a mistaken reading of the situation. The reference to the ultimate aim of a “negotiated two-state solution” correctly acknowledges the present legal situation in which the issue of final status of the territory is a distinct negotiating issue between Israel and the Palestinians, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, to which the UK, Ireland and Sweden, as part of the EU, are signatory as witness. However, in acknowledging this, it is clear that the issue of the permanent status of the territory remains an open negotiating issue, yet to be agreed-on, and one may assume that upon resumption of the negotiating process, it will be duly addressed by the parties as one of the central agenda items.

 

Accordingly, the British House of Commons, the Irish Upper House and the Swedish prime minister would appear to contradict themselves by recognizing that negotiations are still pending, but nevertheless at the same time prejudging the outcome of the very negotiation they purport to support, by calling for recognition of the state of Palestine. Clearly no such a Palestinian state or sovereign entity exists and thus cannot logically be recognized or acknowledged by the UK Parliament. Similarly, no international treaty, convention or binding international resolution or determination has ever been adopted or entered into, that determines that the territories in dispute are indeed Palestinian. In this context, the Palestinian leadership itself is committed, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, to negotiate the issue of the permanent status of the territory.  Article V of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements signed by Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin on September 13, 1993 states as follows: “2. Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as possible, but not later than the beginning of the third year of the interim period, between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian people representatives. 3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.” Accordingly, the outcome of such negotiations and the ultimate status of the territory, whether as a Palestinian state or any other sovereign entity agreed-upon by the two sides, cannot be arbitrarily imposed by external parties, including the UK, Irish or Swedish parliaments, or the UN. It may only emanate from a bona-fide negotiating process as well as in accordance with accepted norms and requirements of international law regarding the characteristics of statehood. Such norms and requirements are set out in international law in article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States that clearly determines the attributes of statehood: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” The Palestinians clearly do not meet the requirements set out in this convention.

 

Since the issue of the permanent status of the disputed territory is an agreed-upon negotiating issue, as indeed acknowledged by the international community including the UK, Ireland and Sweden,  any resolution by the House of Commons, the Irish Upper House of Parliament or the Swedish prime minister calling for recognition of a Palestinian state in effect purports to pre-empt the outcome of that negotiation through a one-sided determination that totally ignores legitimate legal and historic claims to the territory by Israel, including those based on historic and legal commitments to which the United Kingdom itself is bound. They would thus appear to be intervening in a bona fide negotiating process by supporting one side only. This is far from constituting any “bridge” to negotiations, so described by shadow foreign minister Mr. Ian Lucas, or “morally right,” as stated by Mr. Nicholas Soames. To the contrary, rather than encouraging a return to negotiations, as claimed by the proponents of these resolutions, such one-sided and biased issuances emanating from European parliaments will only serve to impede any bona fide and genuine negotiation by encouraging the Palestinians to adopt arbitrary and uncompromising positions on the issues on the negotiating agenda, knowing that they have the support of those European countries.

 

While clearly it is the sovereign prerogative of the British, Irish or Swedish Parliaments to adopt whatever resolution they choose, one might assume that they would not want to be misled or manipulated, whether by narrow political interests, external political or economic pressures or any other cause, into adopting a resolution that is legally and politically ill-advised and mistaken. It would be legally and politically prudent were the UK House of Commons and the Irish Upper House, as well as the Prime Minister of Sweden, to reconsider such ill-advised resolutions or statements, which certainly do no credit to them nor to those MPs who advanced and supported them…

[To Read the Full Article, With Footnotes, Click the Following Link—Ed.]                       

 

                                                                                   

Contents                                    

                                                                         

EHR DAW’ — THEY’RE HERE                                                                      

Rabbi Shalom Lewis                                                                                            

Frontpage, Oct. 7, 2014

 

I thought that maybe I’d start with a rendition of Paul McCartney’s plaintive masterpiece “Yesterday”… “Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away. Now it looks as though they’re here to stay, oh I believe in yesterday” – but then I thought, too romantic…And then I remembered Joseph Conrad’s sadly, cynical observation – – “The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary. Men alone are quite capable of every wickedness,” and sadly it felt right.

 

And so, here were are in a place of unimagined chaos and cowardice, paralysis and brutality. The beast roams the earth; we are stymied, stunned and continue to fiddle. My friends, “Ehr Kumpt Part 2, the Sequel.” This is not a time for delicacy. For tiptoeing. It is not a time to parse words nor worry about offending someone with unfiltered vocabulary. Time is no longer a luxury we possess. Distance no longer provides protection. We are being threatened like no time before, by an enemy obsessed with an apocalyptic endgame that will bring only disaster. An enemy that worships savagery. An enemy that celebrates depravity. An enemy that glorifies the death of the young. There has been a seismic shift in our world. We feel it. We see it. We know it. We dare not deny it. Pick up any newspaper on any day, the first page, the second page, the third page, the fourth page and beyond – – most of the articles are about radical Muslims, not just ISIS, immersed in a vicious culture of blood and slaughter. Skip to the sports page or the crossword puzzle if you wish, but that doesn’t make the uncomfortable news go away. In fact, it brings joy to the jihadists who hope for our indifference. If we deny evil then we need not fight it. It doesn’t exist – just a few lunatics, thousands of miles away, pounding sand, blowing each other up and occasionally beheading an unlucky journalist. Not so bad. For years, we have been mercifully spared the ugliness and intimacy of war…But today, war has been redefined and relocated. Geneva is finished. We are all combatants in the cross hairs. We are all on the front lines, like it or not. The battlefield has no boundaries and the war, no rules. The enemy targets deliberately, fiendishly, any place of innocence. All are vulnerable and so we must recalculate our strategy, re-examine our tolerance, re-energize our resolve and unequivocally identify the evil doers. Let us not be silenced by fear, by feckless goodwill, by reckless hope, by meaningless rhetoric.

 

There are one billion Muslims in the world and authorities agree that 5% are committed Islamists who embrace terror and wish to see, by any means possible, the Muslim flag fly over every capital, on every continent. I was relieved when I heard only 5%. Thank God it’s only 5%. Now I could sleep soundly. But wait, let me figure this out, 5% of a billion is… 50 million Koran-waving, Allah Akbar-howling Muslim murderers out there planning to slit our throats, blow us up or forcibly convert us…But what disturbs me is, where are the other 950 million Muslims who are not terrorists? Who are not bomb-blasting, acid-throwing zealots? Where are the other 950 million Muslims who tuck their children in at night with a lullaby, who are okay with Christians and Jews, crave a peaceful world and wish nothing more than a tasty bowl of hummus and a friendly game of Shesh Besh with a neighbor? I want to believe they are out there, for their sake and for ours. I want to believe they weep in pain over the desecration of their faith. I want to believe that we have partners who dream the dreams we do and wish upon the same star. I want to believe – – but where are they? A silent partnership is no partnership. Sin is not just in the act of commission – it is also in the act of omission. Most Germans were not Nazis – but it did not matter. Most Russians were not Stalinists – but it did not matter. Most Muslims are not terrorists – but it does not matter. Stand up righteously or get out of the way. Perhaps in every mosque, in every midrassah, in every Muslim neighborhood, Edmund Burke’s powerful warning should be chiseled on a wall in Arabic, in Farsi, in Pashto, in Urdu, for all to read and heed. “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.”…                                           

[To Read the Full Article  Click the Following Link—Ed.]                        

           

Contents                                               

 

On Topic

 

Terrorism Defies Definition: Daniel Pipes and Teri Blumenfeld, Washington Times, Oct. 23, 2014 —Defining terrorism has practical implications because formally certifying an act of violence as terrorist has important consequences in U.S. law.

Egypt Cancels Israel-Hamas Talks, Shutters Rafah, Plans Anti-Smuggling Wall After Mass Car Bombing: Dave Bender, Algemeiner, Oct. 26, 2014 —After a terror attack on Friday killed at least 30 Egyptian soldiers in the northern Sinai, Cairo has declared a state of emergency in the area, closed down the Rafah crossing from Gaza, canceled indirect cease-fire talks between Israel and Hamas, and now says it will build a wall to block smuggling with the coastal enclave, Israel’s NRG News reported.

The Role of Hamas and Fatah in the Jerusalem Disturbances: Pinhas Inbari, JCPA, Oct. 26, 2014 —The deterioration of the security situation in Jerusalem cannot be understood only on the Israeli-Palestinian level…

MPs 'Encouraged Hamas Terrorism' by Voting for Palestinian State Says Israel: David Blair, Telegraph, Oct. 24, 2014 —Parliament was guilty of “encouraging terrorist attacks” and “giving up” on peace when MPs cast a “miserable” vote in favour of Palestinian statehood, according to an Israeli cabinet minister.

 

 

 

 

 

 

               

 

 

 

                      

                

                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Contents:         

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

 

 

Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org

THE WEEK THAT WAS: TERRORIST ATTACKS, & “KLINGHOFFER” CONTROVERSY, REMIND US OF THE DEADLY THREAT OF ISLAMIST TERROR

We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to:  Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station  H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 

 

Contents:

 

Tomb of the Unknown Soldier Now Belongs, in Part, to the Memory of one we Know: Father Raymond J. de Souza, National Post, Oct. 24, 2014 —I have been to the cenotaph many times to pray for our country and to honour our fallen.

The Allure of Radical Islam in Canada: David Frum, The Atlantic, Oct. 23, 2014 — Last year, the head of Canada’s security agency delivered a warning to the Canadian Senate.

‘The Death Of Klinghoffer’ Is An Injustice To Our Father’s Memory: Lisa & Ilsa Klinghoffer, Jewish Press, Oct. 23, 2014— On Oct. 8, 1985, our 69-year-old wheelchair-bound father, Leon Klinghoffer, was shot in the head by Palestinian hijackers on the Achille Lauro cruise ship.

Metropolitan Opera Stifles Free Exchange of Ideas about a Propaganda Opera: Alan M. Dershowitz, Gatestone Institute, Oct. 21, 2014 —On Monday night I went to the Metropolitan Opera. I went for two reasons: to see and hear John Adams' controversial opera, The Death of Klinghoffer; and to see and hear what those protesting the Met's judgment in presenting the opera had to say.

Quiet Heroes of the Second World War: Susan Schwartz, Montreal Gazette, Oct. 7, 2014— Nelly Trocmé Hewett, the daughter of two quiet heroes of the Second World War, will be in Montreal later this month to talk about her parents, Magda and André Trocmé, who inspired a network of resistance to the Vichy government’s deportation of thousands to concentration camps.

On Topic Links

 

Bruce MacKinnon’s War Memorial Cartoon Touches Hearts Worldwide: Mary Ellen Macintyre, Herald News, Oct. 23, 2014

Canada Mosque Teaches 4-Year-Olds How to Behead (Video): WND, Oct. 3, 2014
An Assault on the Heart of the Canadian State (Video): Mark Steyn, Steyn Online, Oct. 23, 2014

Brigitte Gabriel Keynote Speaker at United Nations (Video): Youtube, Sept. 9, 2014

Hebrew –English Bilingual School in Harlem (Video): Jerusalem Online, Oct. 24, 2014

Klinghoffer and the ‘Two Sides’ of Terrorism: Floyd Abrams, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 15, 2014

 

                                                                                                           

TOMB OF THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER NOW BELONGS,

IN PART, TO THE MEMORY OF ONE WE KNOW                                    

Father Raymond J. de Souza                                                                                         National Post, Oct. 24, 2014

 

I have been to the cenotaph many times to pray for our country and to honour our fallen. Another visit is required now, because it has been consecrated anew. The blood of Corporal Nathan Cirillo has been shed. The tomb of the Unknown Soldier now belongs in part to the memory of one we know. Cpl. Cirillo was there because the National War Memorial had been desecrated in 2006 on Dominion Day. Some young hooligans relieved themselves on it, and in response a ceremonial guard was placed there, both to honour the dead and to keep vandals away. When shrines or sanctuaries are desecrated, they must be reconsecrated — whether it be the temple of Jerusalem in ancient times or the churches burned this summer in Nigeria.

 

The cenotaph, desecrated in 2006, was reconsecrated on Wednesday in the most dramatic way possible — set apart once again, made sacred once again. It was Lincoln who gave us the words at Gettysburg: “In a larger sense, we cannot dedicate ….we cannot consecrate … we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.” The National War Memorial — titled “The Response” — was dedicated in 1939 by King George VI to commemorate the Great War, just months before a war of even greater carnage would begin. In 1982 it was formally re-dedicated to honour the fallen of the Second World War and Korea, and in 2000 the remains of a soldier from Vimy were interred to make it the Canadian tomb of the Unknown Soldier. After Cpl. Cirillo was killed on site, there will be no need for another ceremony to include here the fallen of the wars against Islamist terror. That has been done in his blood.

 

Wednesday was intended by the assassin to be rich in symbols — an attack on the soldiers’ memorial, an attack on Parliament. So it was supremely fitting that he was stopped by a figure both symbolic and real, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons, the mace-bearer who marches before the Speaker in the opening ceremonial of the Commons. Kevin Vickers is also the head of security on the Hill, which is why in addition to carrying the mace, he can fire a pistol. It is irreverent to imagine that he might have bludgeoned Michael Zehaf-Bibeau into submission with the mace itself, but that was symbolically the case. The mace represents the authority of the chamber conferred by the Crown (which is why it is draped in the presence of the sovereign herself). It is a fitting symbol of Parliament itself. In the person of its mace-bearer then, Parliament offered its own “Response” to the attempted attack on its peaceable assembly.

 

In the coming days I expect that both the cenotaph and Parliament Hill will be closed off to public access. I remember working on the Hill 25 years ago when it was possible to drive up to Parliament buildings freely and enter them with a simple indication of which office you wished to visit. It has not been like that for many years now, but as soon as possible the symbol of our national democracy — and the symbol of the fallen who have sacrificed their lives in its service — should return to being living symbols, signs that are not only signs, but which accomplish what they signify. Keep them open; do not let them become symbols instead of a free people held captive by liberty’s enemies. Perhaps this Remembrance Day, a variation on the usual ceremony could be added. Have the Sergeant-at-Arms carry the mace from the cenotaph back to the Commons in a public procession which honours the fallen at the memorial and makes it clear that the work they died to protect will continue — open and accessible, glorious and free, for on Wednesday in Canada, Nathan Cirillo and Kevin Vickers were standing on guard for thee.

 

                                                                  

Contents        

                                                                                 

THE ALLURE OF RADICAL ISLAM IN CANADA

David Frum                                                                                                                    

The Atlantic, Oct. 23, 2014

           

Last year, the head of Canada’s security agency delivered a warning to the Canadian Senate. “Five years ago we weren’t as worried about domestic terrorism as we are now,” said Richard Fadden. He explained why: In the 1990s and early 2000s, Islamic terrorism was perpetrated by structured organizations with lines of command—groups like al-Qaeda and Somalia’s al-Shabab. But the U.S.-led anti-terrorism coalition had smashed the leadership of these groups, and left behind a motley bunch of autonomous freelancers whose plots were much “harder to get your hands on.” Western intelligence agencies were seeing far fewer large-scale plots like those that did so much damage in New York City, in Washington, in Bali, in Madrid, and in London in the early 2000s, Fadden continued, but they were collecting much more chatter about smaller-scale threats against less predictable targets.

 

Fadden’s prophecy has been all too tragically vindicated this week. On Monday, a French-Canadian convert to Islam drove his car at two Canadian soldiers in the small city of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, southeast of Montreal. One soldier was killed. The assailant was shot and killed by police after a high-speed car chase. Wednesday brought a spectacular attack on the National War Memorial and Parliament in Ottawa. Again, a soldier was killed, before the assailant himself was reportedly felled by the sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons. This attacker too was a Canadian-born Muslim convert, the son of a French-Canadian woman and (according to recent press reports) a Libyan man who had emigrated to Canada. The Saint-Jean hit-and-run driver, Martin Couture-Rouleau, appeared on a list of 90 persons monitored by Canadian police and had been identified as a “high-risk traveler”; He was arrested last summer when he tried to leave the country for the Middle East. Official sources have not said anything about whether Couture-Rouleau and the Ottawa shooter, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, were acquainted or connected in any way. Former Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, however, told The Daily Beast on Wednesday that the two men may have visited the same Internet chat rooms. ISIS has promoted using cars as weapons against Westerners, though it remains unclear whether Couture-Rouleau drew inspiration from the extremist group.

 

Since 2006, Canadian security has thwarted many localized plots—two in 2013 alone. At a July 1 Canada Day celebration in front of the British Columbia legislature, two Canadian-born converts to Islam intended to detonate homemade pressure-cooker bombs, police charge. Two non-citizens—one Palestinian, one Tunisian—were arrested in April 2013 for allegedly plotting to derail a passenger train. A lot of energy is wasted debating whether do-it-yourself jihadists should be called “terrorists.” The Obama administration notoriously insisted on describing the Ford Hood shooting of 2009 as an incident of “workplace violence,” not terrorism. The killer at Fort Hood, Major Nidal Malik Hassan, was perceived by colleagues as mentally troubled long before he opened fire, killing 13 and wounding 32 more. Judging by media reports, Zehaf-Bibeau likewise could be described, if one wished to eschew the T-word, as a troubled misfit with a long record of petty criminality. On the other hand, what kind of person would one expect jihadists to recruit from inside a Western society? In countries like Canada, Australia, Britain, and the United States, the call to Islamic holy war often appeals to more marginal people: the thwarted, the troubled, the angry. And yet even so, the Saint-Jean killer—Couture-Rouleau—reportedly had a clean police record and a reasonably stable personal life until his conversion to Islam. He owned a pressure-washing business and lived in a single family home with his father.

 

If you are alienated, angry, and attracted to violence, radical Islam provides a powerful ideology of justification. If you are lonely and purposeless, it offers redemptive self-sacrifice (one report claims that Couture-Rouleau persuaded “four or five” friends to convert to Islam with him). Until roughly 1960, French-speaking Quebec ranked as one of the most Catholic societies on earth. In the late 1950s, more than 80 percent of French Quebeckers could be found at Mass on Sundays, according to one famous estimate. Then, abruptly, in the short span of years from 1960 to 1980, religion seemed almost to vanish from the province. It’s been aptly said that from the point of view of religious observance, “centuries, not decades” separated the Quebec of the 1980s from the Quebec of the 1950s. Yet the hunger for meaning is always a part of the human spirit. In a different time, Couture-Rouleau might have vanished into a monastery. In the 21st century, he found a different and deadlier path. The alleged would-be British Columbian bombers might likewise have gravitated to Maoism in the 1960s or Nazism in the 1930s. But those ideologies too have lost their hold on the modern mind, leaving radical Islam as the strongest competitor for the credence of those who seek self-fulfillment through mass destruction…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

                                                                                   

                                                                       

Contents                    

                                                                                                

‘THE DEATH OF KLINGHOFFER’ IS AN INJUSTICE

TO OUR FATHER’S MEMORY                                                            

Lisa & Ilsa Klinghoffer                                                                                      

Jewish Press, Oct. 23, 2014

 

On Oct. 8, 1985, our 69-year-old wheelchair-bound father, Leon Klinghoffer, was shot in the head by Palestinian hijackers on the Achille Lauro cruise ship. The terrorists brutally and unceremoniously threw his body and wheelchair overboard into the Mediterranean. His body washed up on the Syrian shore a few days later. Beginning on Oct. 20 for eight performances, a baritone portraying “Leon Klinghoffer” is appearing on the stage of the Metropolitan Opera and singing the “Aria of the Falling Body” as he artfully falls into the sea. Competing choruses will highlight Jewish and Palestinian narratives of suffering and oppression, selectively presenting the complexities of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

 

The four terrorists responsible for his murder will be humanized by distinguished opera singers and given a back-story, an “explanation” for their brutal act of terror and violence. Opera-goers will see and hear a musical examination of terrorism, the Holocaust and Palestinian claims of dispossession – all in under three hours. Since the Met Opera’s decision to stage “The Death of Klinghoffer” by composer John Adams became public several months ago, much has been said and written about our father. Those opposed to the opera’s appearance in New York have elevated his murder at the hands of terrorists into a form of martyrdom. To cultural arbiters and music critics, meanwhile, his tragic story has been seen merely as a vehicle for what they perceive to be artistic brilliance. For us, the impact and message of the opera is much more deeply felt and tragically personal. Neither Mr. Adams nor librettist Alice Goodman reached out to us when creating the opera, so we didn’t know what to expect when we attended the American debut at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in 1991. We were devastated by what we saw: the exploitation of the murder of our father as a vehicle for political commentary. Over the years we have been deeply distressed with each new production of “Klinghoffer.” Critical views of Israel permeate the opera, and the staging and props of various productions have only amplified that bias. To have it now produced in New York – in our own backyard – by the country’s most prestigious opera company is incredibly painful.

 

We have always been strong supporters of the arts, and believe they can play an important role in examining and understanding significant world events. “Klinghoffer” does no such thing. It presents false moral equivalencies without context and offers no real insight into the historical reality and the senseless murder of an American Jew. The opera rationalizes, romanticizes, and legitimizes the terrorist murder of our father. Long ago we resolved never to let the last few minutes of Leon Klinghoffer’s life define who he was as a man, husband, and father. Opera patrons will only see Leon Klinghoffer presented as a victim – but he was so much more. Our father was an inventor who loved to work with his hands. After his stroke, he continued to use his one good arm to repair anything that needed fixing. Every Saturday night he and our mother, Marilyn, would get dressed up and go out dancing. Family and friends meant everything to him. He was on a cruise with our mother, celebrating their 36th anniversary with a group of lifelong friends who summered together on the Jersey shore, when terrorists took over the ship, announced a hijacking in progress, and separated the Jewish passengers from those on board. The terrorist thugs who murdered Leon Klinghoffer didn’t care about the good, sweet man our father was. To them he was just a Jew – an American in a wheelchair whose life they considered worthless.

 

As the years have passed, we have tried to ensure that his murder would not be forgotten or, worse, co-opted or exploited by those with an agenda. We believe his ordeal should continue to serve as a wake-up call to civilized society about the dangers of terrorism. We have dedicated our lives since the tragedy to educating people about terrorism, and putting a personal face on victims and their families through the Leon and Marilyn Klinghoffer Memorial Foundation of the Anti-Defamation League. Our father was one of the first American victims of Middle Eastern terrorism. Today with the memory of 9/11, the reality of al Qaeda and ISIS, and countless other attacks and threats, Americans live under the deadly threat of terrorism each and every day. Terrorism is irrational. It should never be explained away or justified. Nor should the death of innocent civilians be misunderstood as an acceptable means for drawing attention to perceived political grievances. Unfortunately, “The Death of Klinghoffer” does all of this and sullies the memory of our father in the process.

                                                                       

Contents     

                                                                                                        

 

METROPOLITAN OPERA STIFLES FREE EXCHANGE

OF IDEAS ABOUT A PROPAGANDA OPERA       

Alan M. Dershowitz                                                                                                        Gatestone Institute, Oct. 21, 2014

 

On Monday night I went to the Metropolitan Opera. I went for two reasons: to see and hear John Adams' controversial opera, The Death of Klinghoffer; and to see and hear what those protesting the Met's judgment in presenting the opera had to say. Peter Gelb, the head of the Met Opera, had advised people to see it for themselves and then decide. That's what I planned to do. Even though I had written critically of the opera—based on reading the libretto and listening to a recording—I was also critical of those who wanted to ban or censor it. I wanted personally to experience all sides of the controversy and then "decide." Lincoln Center made that difficult. After I bought my ticket, I decided to stand in the Plaza of Lincoln Center, across the street and in front of the protestors, so I could hear what they were saying and read what was on their signs. But Lincoln Center security refused to allow me to stand anywhere in the large plaza. They pushed me to the side and to the back, where I could barely make out the content of the protests. "Either go into the opera if you have a ticket or leave. No standing." When I asked why I couldn't remain in the large, open area between the protestors across the street and the opera house behind me, all I got were terse replies: "security," "Lincoln Center orders."

 

The end result was that the protestors were talking to and facing an empty plaza. It would be as if the Metropolitan Opera had agreed to produce The Death of Klinghoffer, but refused to allow anyone to sit in the orchestra, the boxes or the grand tier. "Family circle, upstairs, side views only." That's not freedom of expression, which requires not only that the speakers be allowed to express themselves, but that those who want to see and hear them be allowed to stand in an area in front of, and close to, the speakers, so that they can fully participate in the marketplace of ideas. That marketplace was needlessly restricted on the opening night of The Death of Klinghoffer. Unable to see or hear the content of the protest, I made my way to the opera house where I first registered a protest with the Met's media person and then sat down in my fourth row seat to listen and watch the opera. I'm an opera fanatic, having been to hundreds of Met performances since my high school years. This was my third opera since the beginning of the season, just a few weeks ago. I consider myself something of an opera aficionado and "maven." I always applaud, even flawed performances and mediocre operas. By any standard, The Death of Klinghoffer, is anything but the "masterpiece" its proponents are claiming it is. The music is uneven, with some lovely choruses—more on that coming—one decent aria, and lots of turgid recitatives. The libretto is awful. The drama is confused and rigid, especially the weak device of the captain looking back at the events several years later with the help of several silent passengers. There are silly and distracting arias from a British show girl who seems to have had a crush on one of the terrorists, as well as from a woman who hid in her cabin eating grapes and chocolate. They added neither to the drama nor the music of the opera.

 

Then there were the choruses. The two that open the opera are supposed to demonstrate the comparative suffering of the displaced Palestinians and the displaced Jews. The Palestinian chorus is beautifully composed musically, with some compelling words, sung rhythmically and sympathetically. The Jewish chorus is a mishmash of whining about money, sex, betrayal and assorted "Hasidism" protesting in front of movie theaters. It never mentions the six million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust, though the chorus is supposed to be sung by its survivors. The goal of that narrative chorus is to compare the displacement of 700,000 Palestinians—some of which was caused by Arab leaders urging them to leave and return victoriously after the Arabs murdered the Jews of Israel—with the systematic genocide of six million Jews. It was a moral abomination. And it got worse. The Palestinian murderer is played by a talented ballet dancer, who is portrayed sympathetically. A chorus of Palestinian women asks the audience to understand why he would be driven to terrorism. "We are not criminals," the terrorists assures us. One of the terrorists—played by the only Black lead singer—is portrayed as an overt anti-Semite, expressing hateful tropes against "the Jews". But he is not the killer. Nor, in this opera, is Klinghoffer selected for execution because he is a Jew. Instead, he is picked because he is a loudmouth who can't control his disdain for the Palestinian cause.

 

At bottom The Death of Klinghoffer—a title deliberately selected to sanitize his brutal murder—is more propaganda than art. It has some artistic moments but the dominant theme is to create a false moral equivalence between terrorism and its victims, between Israel and Palestinian terrorist groups, and between the Holocaust and the self-inflicted Nakba. It is a mediocre opera, by a good composer and very bad librettist. But you wouldn't know that from the raucous standing ovations received not only by the performers and chorus master, who deserved them, but also by the composer, who did not. The applause was not for the art. Indeed, during the intermission and on the way out, the word I heard most often was "boring." The over-the-top standing ovations were for the "courage" displayed by all those involved in the production. But it takes little courage to be anti-Israel these days, or to outrage Jews. There were, to be sure, a few brief expressions of negative opinion during the opera, one of which was briefly disruptive, as an audience member repeatedly shouted "Klinghoffer's murder will never be forgiven." He was arrested and removed. What would require courage would be for the Met to produce an opera that portrayed Mohammad, or even Yassir Arafat, in a negative way. The protests against such portrayals would not be limited to a few shouts, some wheelchairs and a few hundred distant demonstrators. Remember the murderous reaction to a few cartoons several years ago.

                                                                       

Contents     

                                                                                                                

QUIET HEROES OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR                                               

Susan Schwartz                                                                                                   

Montreal Gazette, Oct. 7, 2014

 

Nelly Trocmé Hewett, the daughter of two quiet heroes of the Second World War, will be in Montreal later this month to talk about her parents, Magda and André Trocmé, who inspired a network of resistance to the Vichy government’s deportation of thousands to concentration camps. A book of selected writings by the Trocmés, translated into English for the first time, was published this year by McGill-Queen’s Press: Magda and André Trocmé: Resistance Figures.

 

André Trocmé was a Protestant minister in the small Protestant farming village of Chambon-sur-Lignon in Vichy France, which was collaborating with the Nazis. He used his pulpit to encourage his congregation to shelter Jew fleeing Nazism; Magda Trocmé organized the operation. Other area ministers did the same; together, they helped to motivate several thousand citizens in Le Chambon and surrounding areas to give sanctuary to an estimated 3,500 Jews and 1,500 other refugees, mainly political dissidents, from across Europe. In 1942, when Trocmé was asked to turn over Jews to a Vichy official, he is reported to have said: “We don’t know what a Jew is. We only know men.” In what may well have been the war’s largest communal rescue effort, the people of Chambon, located in the mountains of south-central France, sheltered people in their homes and farms and in public institutions. Defying the Nazis and the French government collaborating with them was dangerous work, with the risk of death for anyone caught. A cousin of Rev. Trocmé, Daniel Trocmé, was sent to the Majdanek concentration camp in Poland, where he perished. Both André and Magda were recognized by Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial centre in Israel, as Righteous among the Nations. Le Chambon and its neighbouring communities are also honoured at Yad Vashem. Their daughter Trocmé Hewett, now 87, was a teenager during the war and later emigrated to the United States…There are two new books on Le Chambon: Caroline Moorehead’s Village of Secrets: Defying the Nazis in Vichy France, to be published Oct. 28, and Moorehead, and A Good Place to Hide: How One French Village Saved Thousands of Lives, by Peter Grose, due out next spring.

           

Contents                                               

On Topic

 

Bruce MacKinnon’s War Memorial Cartoon Touches Hearts Worldwide: Mary Ellen Macintyre, Herald News, Oct. 23, 2014 —After his powerful artistic response to tragic events in Ottawa, it seemed everyone wanted a piece of Herald cartoonist Bruce MacKinnon on Thursday.

Canada Mosque Teaches 4-Year-Olds How to Behead (Video): WND, Oct. 3, 2014
An Assault on the Heart of the Canadian State (Video): Mark Steyn, Steyn Online, Oct. 23, 2014

Brigitte Gabriel Keynote Speaker at United Nations (Video): Youtube, Sept. 9, 2014

Hebrew –English Bilingual School in Harlem (Video): Jerusalem Online, Oct. 24, 2014

Klinghoffer and the ‘Two Sides’ of Terrorism: Floyd Abrams, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 15, 2014—The Metropolitan Opera in New York on Monday will present John Adams ’s opera “The Death of Klinghoffer. ” The organization’s decision to mount the production has already spurred protests, with more to come.

 

 

 

 

               

 

 

 

                      

                

                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Contents:         

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

 

 

Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org

IN MEMORIAM: OTTAWA & JERUSALEM MOURN TERRORIST VICTIMS: HARPER: “WE WILL NEVER BE INTIMIDATED”

We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to:  Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station  H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 

 

Contents:

 

Stephen Harper’s Speech on the Ottawa Shooting, Full Text: National Post, Oct. 22, 2014

Visibly Shaken Harper Proclaims ‘Canada Will Never be Intimidated’: John Ivison, National Post, Oct. 22, 2014— The goal of the coward who shot a reservist, providing ceremonial guard to the Tomb for the Unknown Soldier, was to cause shock and fear across this country.

Terrorists Don’t Have a Chance in this Country: Margaret Wente, Globe & Mail, Oct. 23, 2014 I was never prouder of my country than I was Wednesday.

Terrorist Kills Infant, Wounds Several, After Ramming Car Into Crowd in Jerusalem: Daniel K. Eisenbud, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 23, 2014— A three-month-old girl, identified by her grandfather as Chaya Zissel, was killed and several US citizens and Israelis were wounded Wednesday evening when a convicted Palestinian terrorist from the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan rammed his vehicle into a crowd of people in the capital.

Israel Under Attack, Again: Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post, Oct. 22, 2014— In the capital of a U.S. ally, a terrorist drove his car into a crowd, injuring eight people, including a three-month old baby.

Unrest, Instability, Intifada — Whatever its  Name, it’s in Hamas’s Interest: Mitch Ginsberg, Times of Israel, Oct. 23, 2014—Whether the violence in Jerusalem since the gruesome murder of Muhammad Abu-Khdeir in July amounts to a Third Intifada will only be clear in hindsight.

On Topic Links

 

Krauthammer: Ottawa Gunman, Homegrown Threats Are ‘New Face Of Terrorism’ [VIDEO]: Daily Caller, Oct. 22, 2014

The Terrorism Threat to Canada: Jonathan D. Halevi, JCPA, Oct. 23, 2014

Terror Shouldn't Break Our Ties With Our Soldiers: David Bercuson, Globe & Mail, Oct. 22, 2014

Lieberman: Terror in Jerusalem and Ottawa Part of ‘Global Epidemic’: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu, Jewish Press, Oct. 23, 2014

Abbas’s Fatah Honors Jerusalem Hit-and-Run Terrorist: Elhanan Miller, Times of Israel, Oct. 23, 2014

                            

STEPHEN HARPER’S SPEECH ON THE OTTAWA SHOOTING,

FULL TEXT                                      

National Post, Oct. 22, 2014

 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper addressed the nation on Wednesday to denounce the savage murder of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and declare: Canada will never be intimidated. Here is a transcript of his speech.

 

My fellow Canadians, for the second time this week there has been a brutal and violent attack on our soil. Today our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo of the Argyll and Sunderland Highlanders. Cpl. Cirillo was killed today, murdered in cold blood, as he provided a ceremonial honour guard at Canada’s National War Memorial, that sacred place that pays tribute to those who gave their lives so that we can live in a free, democratic and safe society. Likewise our thoughts and prayers remain also with the family and friends of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent who was killed earlier this week by an ISIL [Islamic State of Iraq and Levant] inspired terrorist. Tonight we also pray for the speedy recovery of the others injured in these despicable attacks.

 

Fellow Canadians, we have also been reminded today of the compassionate and courageous nature of so many Canadians like those private citizens and first responders who came to provide aid to Corporal Cirillo as he fought for his life and, of course, the members of our security forces in the RCMP, the City of Ottawa Police and in Parliament who came quickly and at great risk to themselves to assist those of us who were close to the attack.

 

Fellow Canadians, in the days to come we will learn more about the terrorist and any accomplices he many have had. But this week’s events are a grim reminder that Canada is not immune to the types of terrorist attacks we have seen elsewhere around the world. We are also reminded that attacks on our security personnel and on our institutions of governance are by their very nature attacks on our country, on our values, on our society, on us Canadians as a free and democratic people who embrace human dignity for all.

 

But let there be no misunderstanding: we will not be intimidated. Canada will never be intimidated. In fact, this will lead us to strengthen our resolve and redouble our efforts, and those of our national security agencies, to take all necessary steps to identify and counter threats and keep Canada safe here at home. Just as it will lead us to strengthen our resolve and redouble our efforts to work with our allies around the world and fight against the terrorist organizations who brutalize those in other countries with the hope of bringing their savagery to our shores. They will have no safe haven.

 

Well, today has been, without question, a difficult day. I have every confidence that Canadians will pull together with the kind of firm solidarity that has seen our country through many challenges. Together, we will remain vigilante against those at home or abroad who wish to harm us. For now, Laureen, Ben and Rachel and I join all Canadians in praying for those touched by today’s attack. May God bless them and keep our land glorious and free.

                                                                       

Contents              

                                                                            

                            

VISIBLY SHAKEN HARPER PROCLAIMS

‘CANADA WILL NEVER BE INTIMIDATED’

John Ivison                                                                                                           

National Post, Oct. 22, 2014

           

The goal of the coward who shot a reservist, providing ceremonial guard to the Tomb for the Unknown Soldier, was to cause shock and fear across this country. In one of the most important speeches of his political life, Stephen Harper said we will not be intimidated. “Canada will never be intimidated. It will strengthen our resolve to redouble our efforts,” he said. A visibly shaken Prime Minister said his government will take “all the necessary steps” to keep Canadians safe, without being specific about the measures he plans to take. He condemned the second “brutal and violent” attack this week, particularly the “cold-blooded murder” of Nathan Cirillo. He said the incidents were direct attacks on Canadian democracy, values and society.

 

It was a day of extraordinary feats of courage and compassion by Canadians like Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers, who is understood to have shot the alleged assailant; by the four remarkable citizens of Ottawa who tended to a dying Cpl. Cirillo; by the caregivers forced to look after toddlers in the parliamentary daycare during more than 10 hours of lockdown; by all the soldiers, police and paramedics who put themselves in harm’s way to protect their fellow Canadians.

 

Ottawa is not a city that engenders warm feelings from the rest of the country. It is a city where it’s been said you can wander safe – but lonely. Neither of those descriptions was appropriate on a very black Wednesday in the capital. How could this not change us? The ceremonial guard at the War Memorial has already been cancelled. All of Canada’s military bases across the country have been closed. There are clear questions about the security arrangements at the front door of Centre Block, and whether they are sufficiently robust.

 

It has always surprised, and delighted, me that access into the Parliament Buildings is so straightforward. It has always worried me that a Mumbai-style attack would meet little in the way of resistance from the unarmed Hill security guards at the front door. That is not to take away from the heroism of security staff, who prevented a much more bloody incident. But we have always made a conscious tilt toward openness and access, and away from the kind of more intrusive security common in Washington and London.

 

We now have to ask ourselves whether we as a society are prepared to give up some of our freedoms in order to provide a little more protection. If we weren’t already aware — we are at war with an enemy that considers its way of life can only flourish if ours is extinguished. We are at war, whether we like it or not.

 

                                                                                   

Contents    

                                                                                                                  

TERRORISTS DON’T HAVE A CHANCE IN THIS COUNTRY                           

Margaret Wente                                                                                                  

Globe & Mail, Oct. 23, 2014

 

I was never prouder of my country than I was Wednesday. I learned that we are pretty cool people in a crisis. It’s easy to overreact when someone with a gun storms your seat of government and opens fire – especially when you suspect that person is a radicalized terrorist with an unknown number of accomplices. But we didn’t overreact.

 

What I saw was an institutional response that was professional, quick, efficient and calm. Nobody panicked. I saw our police and security forces handle an unprecedented emergency with great competence and a minimum of fuss. They sprang into action within minutes of the gunfire, and didn’t push any innocent civilians around. I saw the media report the story with care and restraint. No premature conclusions. No scare talk. The CBC reporters never turned a hair. The unflappable Peter Mansbridge is still the best quarterback in the business. The Globe’s astonishing Josh Wingrove had the fortitude to film the bullets spraying and duck for cover. His electrifying video was shown around the world. I saw half a dozen bystanders come to the aid of the soldier who’d been shot as he guarded the National War Memorial. One gave him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Clearly they weren’t thinking about themselves.

 

And I learned that I had woefully underestimated our quaint parliamentary traditions. I’d always thought our sergeant-at-arms was just some guy whose job was to re-enact one of our dustier traditions by dressing up in funny clothes and carrying around a mace (whatever that is). Who knew he was also a crack shot? But Kevin Vickers, who is 58 and looks it, reportedly can aim and fire with deadly precision when his nation is attacked, then go back into his office to reload. He’ll never brag about it, either. That would be un-Canadian.

 

Mr. Vickers is the reason why terrorism doesn’t have a chance in this country. He has made a career of reaching out to Muslims, Sikhs, First Nations, and others who haven’t always been included in this country. When the Idle No More movement marched on Parliament Hill, he formally exchanged tobacco with a First Nations chief and said, “I understand your frustration. I understand the conditions in which you people live and I also understand the importance of tobacco and what it means as not only a gift, but as a sign of respect for your people.” After the Quebec National Assembly banned the kirpan, he made sure the ceremonial dagger would be allowed in the House of Commons. As he told one gathering of Sikhs, he doesn’t like the word “tolerance.” “No,” he said. “As head of security, I am going to accept and embrace your symbol of faith within the Parliamentary Precinct.”

 

Did yesterday change everything? I don’t think so. The truth is that we’re still as safe (or not) as we were last week. In spite of the terrible, nerve-rattling tragedies of the past few days, we are no more vulnerable to terrorism than any other Western nation, and probably (because of geography) somewhat less. We’ll simply have to be on guard. We’ll find out much more in the days ahead – about the shooter, why he did it, whether there were lapses in security. We will debate whether our security forces need extra powers to do their jobs. As we do that, we should keep in mind the words of Kevin Vickers. “I told them that if they made me their sergeant-at-arms, there would be no walls built around Canada’s parliamentary buildings,” he said.

 

Parliament Hill, always open to all the people, will probably become less open than before, and that is a real loss. But I’m pretty sure people will be back next summer to do yoga on the grass. Soldiers will continue to wear their uniforms off base. We Canadians are steadfast and a bit phlegmatic. These are among our finest traits. We don’t get that excited, and we won’t be cowed into giving up our freedoms. Also, when necessary, we can shoot to kill. So long as we retain these virtues, the terrorists don’t have a chance.

 

                                                                       

Contents         

                                                                                                                                  

TERRORIST KILLS INFANT, WOUNDS SEVERAL,

AFTER RAMMING CAR INTO CROWD IN JERUSALEM                                   

Daniel K. Eisenbud                                                                                             

Jerusalem Post, Oct. 23, 2014

 

A three-month-old girl, identified by her grandfather as Chaya Zissel, was killed and several US citizens and Israelis were wounded Wednesday evening when a convicted Palestinian terrorist from the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan rammed his vehicle into a crowd of people in the capital. The attack, which was captured by a security camera, took place at the Ammunition Hill light-rail stop a few hundred meters from Israel’s national police headquarters, situated across a densely traveled thoroughfare, shortly after 6 p.m., a senior police official said. The terrorist was shot by police and late Wednesday evening he died in hospital.

“The vehicle ran over a number of people, including several Americans, as they exited the train, and the suspect was shot when he attempted to flee the scene by foot,” the official said, requesting anonymity until the US State Department confirms the American casualties. “Nine people were injured, three seriously, including an American infant who died after sustaining critical injuries,” he continued. The official described the suspect as a convicted terrorist who served a recent prison sentence in Israel, but did not indicate whether he was released during the 2011 Gilad Schalit prisoner exchange or last year’s release of more than 70 convicted Palestinian terrorists during peace negotiations. All the victims of the attack were transported to area hospitals for treatment, he said.

Following the attack, US State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said she could not confirm or deny the citizenship of the victims and urged restraint while calling on all parties to “maintain calm” as US and Israeli officials continue to gather facts about the incident. The attack comes two days after nine Israeli families moved into the suspect’s Arab neighborhood amid ongoing Palestinian rioting and international condemnation. Meanwhile, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, whose administration has been beleaguered by chronic violence in the capital since June, issued a statement describing Wednesday’s murder as intolerable.
“We must restore peace and security in Jerusalem,” he said. “As I have said for months, the situation in Jerusalem is intolerable and we must act unequivocally against all violence taking place in the city. “Today, more than ever, it is clear that we must send police forces into neighborhoods where there are disturbances, placing them strategically and widely in significant numbers,” he continued. The mayor added that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has given instructions to reinforce police units in east Jerusalem “to implement an operational action plan formulated to deal with riots, including the addition of personnel and special units, using technological means and increased intelligence.” “I will continue to be vigilant, and we will not rest until security is restored in Jerusalem,” Barkat said.

Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said rioting ensued in Isawiya and Silwan shortly after the terrorist attack. “Police units have been dispatched and have contained the rioting,” Rosenfeld said at 10 p.m., adding that no injuries were reported. Police issued a statement on Wednesday night saying that Police Insp.-Gen. Yohanan Danino had met earlier with the heads of the Jerusalem district police and all top police operational branches and ordered that a special security plan approved Wednesday morning for Jerusalem go into effect immediately. They added that police will deploy officers across the city at flash points and based on real-time intelligence, and that they will work together with all security agencies and do whatever it takes in order return peace and quiet to the city. They also vowed to find any other people involved in Wednesday’s attack. Chaya Zissel’s funeral was held on midnight on Wednesday in Jerusalem.

                                                                       

Contents                             

                                                                                                                      

ISRAEL UNDER ATTACK, AGAIN                                                                 

Jennifer Rubin                                                                                                    

Washington Post, Oct. 22, 2014

 

In the capital of a U.S. ally, a terrorist drove his car into a crowd, injuring eight people, including a three-month old baby. News reports indicate that the baby subsequently died. From the Jerusalem Post:     Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas encouraged violence against Jews in Jerusalem, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said following the vehicular terror attack in Jerusalem Wednesday. “This is how Abbas’ partners in government [Hamas] act. This is the same Abbas who, only a few days ago, incited toward a terrorist attack in Jerusalem,” he said. Netanyahu ordered that security forces in Jerusalem be reinforced following the attack, consulting with Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch, Israel Police Commissioner Insp.-Gen. Yohanan Danino and Shin Bet Director Yoram Cohen.

 

According to other media reports, the driver was allegedly a Palestinian who previously was in prison. The Times of Israel reports: “Unconfirmed reports said the suspect was Abdelrahman al-Shaludi, a former Palestinian prisoner from the flashpoint neighborhood of Silwan. Police confirmed that the suspect, which it had yet to name, was from Silwan and had previously served in Israeli prison.”

 

Coincidentally the attack comes on the same day two U.S. senators — Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) — wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry about more than $150 million in assistance going to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) despite its track record during the recent Gaza war in storing terrorist weapons at its sites: Given UNRWA’s record and the absence of an independent investigation into its actions during the conflict, we were dumbfounded when, on October 12th, you reiterated, without any qualification, that the United States would provide more than $150 million to UNRWA programs in Gaza. This blind support sends the wrong message to an institution that has already become far too dependent on the largesse of the American taxpayer and repeatedly failed to ensure that its facilities and resources are not used by terrorists who wish to sow chaos and instability rather than aid the Palestinian people.

 

The United States should assist the people of Gaza as they rebuild after yet another Hamas-caused conflict. But this support cannot come at the expense of Israel’s security. We will not support the provision of future U.S. assistance to entities or projects in Gaza unless the State Department assures Congress that UNRWA or the relevant recipient entity has imposed independently audited accountability measures to verifiably prevent any U.S. assistance from aiding, directly or indirectly, extremists’ efforts to rearm or lay the groundwork for future attacks against Israel. What many in the West treat as “Oh, another attack in Israel,” should not be overlooked. It should be obvious who are friends are and who are enemies are. The latter are the ones who take aim at innocents to kill and wound them. Some moral clarity at the presidential level would be most welcomed.                                  

 

                                                                       

Contents     

                                                                                                                                              

UNREST, INSTABILITY, INTIFADA —

WHATEVER ITS NAME, IT’S IN HAMAS’S INTEREST

Mitch Ginsberg                                                                                                  

 

Times of Israel, Oct. 23, 2014

 

Whether the violence in Jerusalem since the gruesome murder of Muhammad Abu-Khdeir in July amounts to a Third Intifada will only be clear in hindsight. But what the murder on Wednesday of Chaya Zissel Braun has shown, beyond the ruthlessness of the act and the enduring tension in Jerusalem, is the shrewdness of Hamas’s strategy of overthrowing the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank by, of all things, persistently killing innocent Israelis.

 

That is one of the ways Israel should view the recent developments in Jerusalem. When Abdel Rahman al-Shaludi, a Hamas member and relative of a former head of the organization’s armed wing, turned his car into a lethal weapon on Wednesday, he was, whether by design or not, acting exactly according to the alleged Hamas coup plans exposed in August. At the time, the Shin Bet said that it had exposed a Hamas plan to “overthrow the Palestinian Authority and seize control of Judea and Samaria.”

 

Many pictured a coup: the surrounding of the Muqata and the deposing of the chairman of the Palestinian Authority. But what the Shin Bet actually uncovered was a plan, coordinated from Hamas headquarters in Turkey, to establish a loose network of terror cells, comprising a total of 93 operatives, which would “destabilize the security situation in the West Bank and carry out a string of grave attacks in Israel.” The Shin Bet left the rest unsaid: Israel, as happened in Gaza, would assign blame to the PA, seethe, and finally retaliate, weakening the PA to the point that Hamas could step in and finish it off.

 

And the reactions to the terror attack were, in fact, unusually harsh and directed squarely at PA President Mahmoud Abbas. Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, speaking from Washington, said that “there is none, nor has there ever been, in the Palestinian Authority a culture of peace, but rather a culture of incitement and jihad against Jews.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assigned blame to Hamas, but also to Abbas, “who just a few days ago incited attacks on Jews in Jerusalem,” as he said in a statement. Hamas, of course, cannot take all of the credit for the roiling tension and constant drip of violence in the northern part of the city since the July murder. Other forces are at work, too – the friction on the Temple Mount and the status quo that leaves many Arab residents of East Jerusalem cut off from the West Bank and also unaffiliated, at least by citizenship, with Israel. Nonetheless, it is squarely within the organization’s interest to perpetuate instability so that even a random spark could light the fire of a third intifada.

 

“I say this and I repeat, I do not recognize an intifada,” Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch insisted Wednesday after the terror attack. Instead, he said, there was “a rise of incidents” of late but one that, with the help of an increased police presence in the capital, “we will overcome.” For Aharonovitch and the Israel Police, an organization beset by widespread malfeasance, that will be a tall order, and one hopefully achieved before the fire hops the fence and spreads to the West Bank.

           

Contents                                               

 

On Topic

 

The Terrorism Threat to Canada: Jonathan D. Halevi, JCPA, Oct. 23, 2014—On October 22, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, 32, Canadian-born and a convert to Islam, shot dead a soldier and was killed after opening fire inside the Parliament in Ottawa

Krauthammer: Ottawa Gunman, Homegrown Threats Are ‘New Face Of Terrorism’ [VIDEO]: Daily Caller, Oct. 22, 2014—Appearing on “Special Report” Wednesday night, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer opined that individual attacks such as the shooting at Parliament Hill in Ottawa Wednesday is “the new face of terrorism.” 

Terror Shouldn't Break Our Ties With Our Soldiers: David Bercuson, Globe & Mail, Oct. 22, 2014—Within 72 hours, two members of the Canadian Armed Forces were attacked and killed on the soil of Canada for no reason other than that they wore the uniform of the Canadian military. That has never happened before.

Lieberman: Terror in Jerusalem and Ottawa Part of ‘Global Epidemic’: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu, Jewish Press, Oct. 23, 2014—Wednesday’s terrorists attacks “almost at the same time in both ends of the world show that terror is a global epidemic,” Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman wrote on his Facebook page.

Abbas’s Fatah Honors Jerusalem Hit-and-Run Terrorist: Elhanan Miller, Times of Israel, Oct. 23, 2014 —Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement published a poster Thursday celebrating Palestinian terrorist Abdel Rahman Al-Shaludi, who killed three-month-old Chaya Zissel Braun and injured eight other Israelis in a hit-and-run car attack in Jerusalem the previous day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

               

 

 

 

                      

                

                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Contents:         

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

 

 

Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org

TERRORIST I.S., AIDED BY WESTERN RECRUITS & APOLOGISTS, LEADS GLOBAL ISLAMIST JIHAD

We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to:  Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station  H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 

 

Contents:

 

As We Go to Press: SOLDIER DIES AFTER BEING RUN DOWN IN SUSPECTED TERROR ATTACK (Montreal) —The driver of a car who rammed two Canadian Forces members near Montreal before being shot dead by police was known to counter-terrorism authorities who believed he had become radicalized, the RCMP said on Monday as they continued to investigate the possible terrorist attack. The 25-year-old, known as Martin “Ahmad” Rouleau, allegedly hit two members of the Canadian Forces as they were walking in a strip mall just outside St-Jean-sur-Richelieu at about 11:30 a.m. Early Tuesday, one of two soldiers hit by the car died of his injuries. The second soldier’s injuries were described as less serious. A Twitter account under the name Ahmad Rouleau featured the banner of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham, the terrorist group that last month called on its followers to kill Canadians because of Ottawa’s role in the anti-ISIS military coalition. “Islam is the only true religion. Anyone who want scientific proof of God that your terrorist Zionism Rothschild media hide, contact me or add me if you re open minded,” he commented beneath an online Time magazine article last May. (National Post, Oct. 20, 2014)  

 

Thank You, ISIS: David Horowitz, National Review, Oct. 9, 2014— Beheadings of innocent human beings are unspeakable acts reflecting the barbaric savagery of the Islamic “holy war” against the West — against us.

Is the Islamic State a Good Thing?: Raymond Ibrahim, Frontpage, Oct. 2, 2014— The Islamic State (IS) continues expanding its territory and influence through jihad

Western Civilization Must Rally Against the Threat of a New Medievalism: Tasha Kheiriddin, National Post, Sept. 4, 2014— The barbarians are not at the gates; they are inside them.

Radical Islam, Israel and Agitprop: Guy Millière, Gatestone Institute, Sept. 28, 2014— Understanding radical Islam requires going back to its roots.

               

On Topic Links

 

Canadian Jihadist Unmasked: Stewart Bell, National Post, Sept., 2014

The I-Word: Rex Murphy, National Post, Aug. 23, 2014

What The "Two State Solution" Has to Do with the Rise of Islamic Extremism: Zero: Khaled Abu Toameh, Gatestone Institute, Oct. 20, 2014

You Can’t Reform Islam Without Reforming Muslims: Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage, Oct. 21, 2014

                   

                                                 

THANK YOU, ISIS

David Horowitz                                                                                                              

National Review, Oct. 9, 2014

           

Beheadings of innocent human beings are unspeakable acts reflecting the barbaric savagery of the Islamic “holy war” against the West — against us. Yet despite the intentions of their perpetrators, they have had an unexpected utility. Their gruesome images have entered the living rooms and consciousness of ordinary Americans and waked them up. The barbarity of the Islamic movement for world domination has actually been evident for decades: in the suicide bombing of the Marine compound in Lebanon in 1982, in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, in the suicide attacks on Jews — men, women, and children — during the second Palestinian Intifada in 2000, in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001, and in the beheadings perpetrated in Iraq by al-Qaeda’s Abu al-Zarqawi and the Salafist group known as Ansar al-Islam during the Iraq War.

 

Unfortunately, the response to these barbarities on the part of the Democratic party and the liberal elites has been to condemn and marginalize anyone who called them barbarous. In their eyes, it is racist to use the word “barbarism” to describe the acts of any Third World people. To associate Islam with the Islamists was Islamophobic. President Obama is still trapped in this time warp, denying in so many words that the Islamic State is Islamic. For America’s commander-in-chief to make such an obviously moronic statement about his country’s enemy in wartime reflects how deeply settled is the ideology of protecting the Islamists (and jeopardizing the innocent). Even Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, could not bring himself to describe the enemy as Islamic. Settling on “War on Terror” as a descriptive term was a way of eliding the fact that the savagery was motivated by not by nihilism but by Islamic faith. The Obama Democrats have gone even deeper into denial, eliminating “War on Terror” from the government vocabulary and replacing it with “overseas contingency operations.”

 

For more than a decade, a handful of conservatives, of whom I was one, tried to sound the alarm about the Islamist threat…In 2006 and 2007, I organized nearly 200 “teach-ins” on American campuses, which I called “Islamo-Fascism Awareness” weeks. The idea was to legitimize the term “Islamo-fascist” as a description of the enemy confronting us. These demonstrations were attacked by the Muslim Students Association, which is a recruiting organization for the Muslim Brotherhood, and by Students for Justice in Palestine, a front for the terrorist party Hamas. They also inspired the contempt of the liberal Left… Resolutions denouncing critics of Islamic misogyny and terror as “Islamophobes” were unanimously passed by leftist-run student councils at UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, and a dozen other elite schools. Lengthy reports on the menace of Islamophobia targeted me and other speakers at our campus demonstrations, including Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes…

 

And then came ISIS. The horrific images of the beheadings, the reports of mass slaughters, and the threats to the American homeland have accomplished what our small contingent of beleaguered conservatives could never have achieved by ourselves. They brought images of these Islamic fanatics and savages into the living rooms of the American public, and suddenly the acceptable language for describing the enemy began to change. “Savages” and “barbarians” began to roll off the tongues of evening-news anchors and commentators who never would have dreamed of crossing that line before, for fear of offending the politically correct. Virtually every major Muslim organization in America is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, the fountainhead of Islamic terror. Huma Abedin, who was deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (and is still Clinton’s confidante and principal aide), comes from a family of Muslim Brotherhood leaders. Yet legislators who have the power to investigate these matters are still intimidated from even raising them. Representative Michele Bachmann, who did raise them, was excoriated as a racist not only by the Left but also by John Boehner and John McCain.

 

Language is a weapon in the battle against the threat we face. We cannot fight a war effectively when we cannot name the enemy or describe his methods or examine his influence on our own policy. The Islamic State has created an opportunity for common sense and realism to prevail. The tragedy is that it has taken the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Christians in the Middle East and the ongoing extermination of the Catholic presence in Iraq to begin to wake people up. And, unfortunately, the president is still asleep or, less charitably, is hostile to American purposes, is hostile to the military that defends us, and identifies more with the Islamic world that has produced these forces who would destroy us than with the country he is sworn to defend.

                                                                                   

Contents     

                                                                                

 

IS THE ISLAMIC STATE A GOOD THING?                                                          

Raymond Ibrahim                                                                                               

Frontpage, Oct. 2, 2014

 

The Islamic State (IS) continues expanding its territory and influence through jihad. Religious minorities that fall under its sway—at least the fortunate ones—continue to flee in droves, helping make the Islamic State what it strives to be: purely Islamic. Left unfettered, with only cosmetic airstrikes by an indecisive Obama administration to deal with, IS continues growing in strength and confidence, as Western powers again stand idly by. More and more Muslims around the world, impressed and inspired by what they see, become convinced that the Islamic State is in fact the new caliphate deserving of their allegiance.  Such Muslims—the most “radical” kind, who delight in the slaughter and subjugation of “infidels”—continue leaving Western nations and migrating to the Islamic State to wage jihad and live under Sharia. In other words, a sizable chunk of the world’s most radicalized/pious Muslims all become localized in one region.  There they openly and proudly display their anti-infidel supremacism.

 

Throughout, Western media have no choice but to report objectively—so thoroughly exposed for its barbarity has IS become that it is an insurmountable task to whitewash its atrocities.  The world has seen enough about IS to know that this is a savage, hostile, and supremacist state without excuse. Even Obama, after originally citing “grievances” as propelling the Islamic State’s successes, recently made an about face, saying “No grievance justifies these actions.” Put differently, the “Palestinian card” will not work here.  Western media, apologists, and talking heads cannot portray IS terror—including crucifying, beheading, and raping humans simply because they are “infidels”—as a product of “grievances” or “land disputes.” Indeed, the Islamic State itself, which is largely composed of foreigners, is the one invading other territories (Iraq, Syria), massacring and driving out their most indigenous inhabitants, from Christians to Yazidis.

 

In time, the Islamic State’s borders are fully consolidated and the “caliphate” is a fact of reality.  Its war on fellow Muslim “apostates”—its current excuse for not engaging the greatest of all “infidels” in the region, Israel—eventually comes to a close or stalemate. Then the inevitable happens: another conflict erupts between Israel and Hamas; Muslims around the word, including those under IS authority, drunk with power and feelings of superiority, demand that the time to wipe out the Jewish infidel has finally come; that the second phase of the caliphate is now or never—conquest of “original infidels.” As Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu recently declared during his U.N. speech, “ISIS and Hamas are branches of the same poisonous tree. ISIS and Hamas share a fanatical creed, which they both seek to impose well beyond the territory under their control.” Thus the Islamic State will eventually be compelled to start saber rattling and worse against Israel.  After all, its entire legitimacy is founded on its namesake—that it is the “Islamic state,” the state that magnifies and protects Islam and Muslims.   It must eventually confront Israel or else be proven the greatest of all hypocrites or munafiqun—a term of great rebuke in the Koran, which some Muslim authorities are already applying to IS for not confronting Israel now.

 

Conflicts inevitably ensue between Israel and its neighboring Islamic State. But unlike the Jewish state’s war on Hamas—which the mainstream media can manipulate and portray as a war on innocent Palestinian women and children—world governments and media will find it exceedingly difficult to criticize Israel should any conflict between it and IS arise…Moreover, the argument habitually used against Israel—that its war on Hamas creates innocent Palestinian casualties—loses all legitimacy in any war on the Islamic State.

 

After all, IS, the state itself—not some terrorist organization ensconced within the state—is beheading, massacring, and enslaving humans solely on the basis of their religious identity.  Its citizens—who went there of their own accord, unlike “displaced” and “trapped” Palestinians—are fanatical, extremist Muslims, whose greatest aspiration is to decapitate an infidel. No one can apologize for this. The best that can be said is that this is not “true” Islam. This is why, even now, the pro-Islamic Obama administration is forced to condemn IS and even (if perfunctorily) militarily engage it. In short, conventional war becomes very justifiable against IS—especially because there is no longer any worry of accidentally killing this or that moderate or non-Muslim, as they have all been driven away, replaced by Islamic terrorists from around the world. And conventional war has traditionally been the bane of Islamists, who prefer terrorism, hiding among civilians, using them as shields, and playing the victim. Safe from international censure and pushed to the edge, Israel eventually obliterates the Islamic State, while even Islam’s greatest apologists in the West must hold their tongue or else be seen as defenders of the state responsible for the greatest atrocities—crucifixions, beheadings, rapes, slavery, and wholesale massacres—so far committed in the 21st century…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

 

                                                                       

Contents            

                                                                                                                               

WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST RALLY

AGAINST THE THREAT OF A NEW MEDIEVALISM                                         

Tasha Kheiriddin                                                                                                 

National Post, Sept. 4, 2014

 

The barbarians are not at the gates; they are inside them. In middle-class Canada, America and Britain, Islamic radicals scoop up young recruits to practice jihad against the countries that nurtured them. Others commit atrocities against those who do not share their faith, such as the horrific case of Muslim gangs in Rotherham, England, sexually abusing 1,400 non-Muslim schoolgirls over the past 16 years. Still others kill women and girls from their own faith community, for staining the family honour by daring to date a person of their own choosing, or leave an abusive husband.

 

The Western world is embroiled in a war of civilizations, not only overseas, but on its own soil. And right now, it is losing. It has become undone by the very quality that underpins its own religious morality: mercy. In modern times, mercy has morphed into political correctness. Turn the other cheek, even if it gets slapped repeatedly. Treat everyone as an equal, even if they think it’s acceptable to kill or abuse others in the name of one’s faith. But this type of extremism is not religion, naysayers retort: It’s culture. There is nothing in the Koran that mandates the beheading of infidels, the gang rape of children, the genital mutilation of girls, or even the wearing of burkas. Those are cultural perversions, and it’s wrong to tar Islam, and all Muslims, with one bloody brush. One can debate the texts of Islam ad nauseum: What matters are not the actual words, but the use to which they are put. It is true that there are many peaceful Muslims who reject these ideas. But there are many who do not. And more worrisome still, many of them come to their beliefs as young adults, radicalized by those who use the religion for their own purposes. Fear of being labelled “Islamophobic” prevents both discussion of and action against the problem. But the harsh truth is that the organizing principle of Islamic violence is Islam. Without it, there would be nothing to pervert in the first place. Without the call for the creation of an Islamic State, James Foley and Stephen Sotloff would still be alive. Without the belief that women, and non-Muslim women in particular, are second-class citizens, Rotherham would not have become a cesspool of child rape.

 

To be fair, Islam is not the only religion which has been used for violent ends. Catholicism provided the backdrop for the Spanish Inquisition, and Calvinism for the Salem Witch Trials. Christians treated women as inferior to men for centuries, based on the “word of God”; some modern-day religious sects, such as the polygamists of Bountiful, B.C., still do. But over time, mainstream Christianity changed. The Enlightenment spurred an evolution in Western thought. The value of personal freedom gained prominence, while church and state became increasingly separate entities. Over time, these changes begat rights for various social groups, including women, gays and lesbians, and racial minorities. You would think that the inheritors of the Enlightenment would be camped out on the White House lawn demanding that the Islamist threat to Western liberties be stopped. You would think that feminists would storm the gates of 10 Downing Street and demand that the police in Rotherham be jailed for failing to protect their girls. You would think that the LGBT community would realize that the real threat to equality is not the café down the street that doesn’t have transgendered washrooms, but the imam at the local mosque preaching that homosexuals are perverts and should be jailed. Don’t get me wrong: the answer to Allahu Akbar is not Deus vult. The West need not reenact a 21st-century version of the Crusades. But it must rally against the threat of a new medievalism. It cannot allow religious extremists of any faith to turn back the clock of civilization. Calling out crimes based in religion is not racist, but reality — and the first step to stopping them.

                                                                       

Contents               

                                                                                             

RADICAL ISLAM, ISRAEL AND AGITPROP                                                         

Guy Millière                                                                                                         

Gatestone Institute, Sept. 28, 2014

 

Understanding radical Islam requires going back to its roots. The Christian idea of rendering "unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" never existed in Islam. Its absence has had consequences, including, possibly, the decline of the Muslim civilization and the feeling of humiliation that resulted. During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when Muslim clerics observed that the Islamic world was not keeping pace with the West and was on the verge of collapse, they may have decided they needed answers. Some of these clerics turned to the West, where they chose to study Western political ideas. They spoke of necessary reforms, and created secret societies and nationalist organizations. Other clerics chose dogmatic, strict readings of the Quran. They found inspiration in the writings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab and in the established fundamentalist movements. Several secret societies gained strength and came to power: the Young Ottomans staged a coup d'état in 1876; the Young Turks ruled the Ottoman Empire from 1908 to 1918. Nationalist revolts took place: Colonel Ahmed Urabi led a mutiny in Egypt in 1879. A secret society, calling Arabs to recover their "lost vitality," was created in Beirut by Ibrahim al-Yaziji in the late 1870s. The House of Saud, led by Wahhabis, mounted military campaigns against other tribal rulers and the Ottomans in order to seize the Arabian Peninsula. From 1855-56 until his death in 1897, Sayyid Jamāl ad-Dīn al-Afghānī travelled throughout the Muslim world to call desperately for a return to the "original principles" of Islam.

 

But the decline did not stop and the collapse occurred. The First World War led to the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, the emergence of modern Turkey, and the creation of kingdoms and Mandates in the Arab World. In 1923, the Ankara-based Turkish regime, founded by Mustafa Kemal Pasha [Atatürk], became the officially secular Republic of Turkey. Arab nationalists, whom Britain had used as a weapon against the Ottoman Empire, felt betrayed when Britain and France settled on the division of Arab territories and did not satisfy Arab demands. The leader of the Arab revolt, Emir Faisal ibn Hussein, for example, asked during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference in Versailles that, "the Arabic-speaking peoples of Asia" be recognized as "independent sovereign peoples," and that "no steps be taken inconsistent with the prospect of an eventual union" of Arab "areas under one sovereign government." As Arab nationalists grew bitter, pan-Arab nationalism emerged throughout the Arab world. The House of Saud united the kingdoms of the Hejaz and Nejd, and created the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932. Around the same time, radical Islam arose. The Muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwān al-Muslimūn), established in 1928, quickly became the main radical movement.

 

Radical Islam soon took on a different color. Although it is sometimes described as a by-product of fundamentalism, it is really fundamentalism influenced by Western totalitarian dogmas: Marxism, Leninism, fascism, National-Socialism. The borders between radical Islam, Islamic fundamentalism, and Arab Nationalism have always been porous. Fundamentalist Islam "must have power in this world. It is the true religion—the religion of God—and its truth is manifest in its power…. [I]f Muslims now return to the original Islam, they can preserve and even restore their power." In the late 1950s, the political landscape of the Muslim world was relatively easy to describe. Saudi Arabia was fundamentalist. Some moderate kingdoms existed: Jordan, Morocco, Iran. Turkey was a secular republic. Lebanon was a "unitary confessionalist" Republic: a Republic resting on a power-sharing mechanism based on religious communities. Arab nationalists had taken power in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Tunisia, and were about to take power in Algeria. The major Muslim countries in Asia — Pakistan and Indonesia — were not especially present in the news. Pakistan declared Islam as its state religion in 1949: most Pakistani Muslims belonged at the time to the Barelvi movement, much influenced by Sufism.[6] The Deobandi movement, inspired by Wahhabism, was not politically influential. And in Indonesia, the main Muslim groups — Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah — advocated religious moderation.

 

Meanwhile, radical Islam was growing in the shadows. In the 1960s, Arab nationalism was still gaining ground: Libya and Algeria were added to the list of countries ruled by people calling themselves Nationalists. In the 1970s, a civil war erupted in Lebanon. Palestinian militias were expelled from Jordan. They settled in South Lebanon and began fighting Christian militias. As central government authority quickly disintegrated, Shi'a militias that were beginning to form joined in the fighting. The great change occurred on April 1st 1979: Iran, with its version of radical Shi'a Islam, became an Islamic Republic. From then on, radical Islam spread rapidly. In 1985, various violent Lebanese Shi'a extremist groups founded Hezbollah, apparently in the hope of establishing an Islamic State in Lebanon. Two years later, in 1987, Hamas, an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, was founded in Gaza City. Al-Qaeda, a radical Wahhabi movement calling for global jihad, was created in 1988-1989 by Osama bin Laden and Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. In Algeria, the Islamic Salvation Front started its bloody activities in 1989. Afghanistan became an Islamic State in 1992. The Taliban established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 1996. Countless more violent and deadly developments have taken place since. Radical Islam is now present on every continent. It has many names, various appearances, and is now a global threat.

 

In the meantime, as nationalism was on the rise all over the world and the idea of national liberation filled the atmosphere, Zionism emerged as the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, urging Jews scattered all over the earth to come back to "the Land of Israel." The movement began during the collapse of the Muslim world. The First Aliyah [lit. "going up"] to Israel took place in 1881; the First Congress of the World Zionist organization took place in Basel, in 1897, and the Second Aliyah began in 1904. In the 1920s, as the Ottoman Empire was dismantled, and the secret societies, nationalist organizations and fundamentalist movements rose in the Muslim world, Zionism also gained strength. In 1917, the Jewish Legion, a group of Zionist volunteers, assisted the British Army in Palestine (the name given to the land by Roman Emperor Hadrian in 135 A.D., to try to rid it of its Jewish roots). The same year, the Balfour Declaration confirmed support from the British government for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." In 1922, the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate over Palestine to establish the "national home for the Jewish people." The official document explicitly states that "a recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine."

 

Zionism was compatible. It could coexist with moderate kingdoms, such as Morocco, with secular republics such as modern Turkey, and with republics such as Lebanon before its civil war. Islamic fundamentalism and Arab Nationalism, however, are not compatible with Zionism. In the eyes of Islamic fundamentalists, Jews are ahl al-ḏimmah, people of the dimmah: inferiors who are allowed to survive in an Islamic-conquered land only if they accept being subjugated and deprived of any legal or human rights. Further, in fundamentalist Islam, the entire world is divided into either the Dar al-Islam [The House of Islam] or the Dar al-Harb [The House of War], where Islam does not yet dominate. In the eyes of Islamic fundamentalists, therefore, every territory — whether Israel or Spain's al-Andalus — that has ever been under the rule of Islam must remain irreversibly under the rule of Islam — a waqf, or religious endowment, held in trust for Allah as part of his dar al-Islam [the House of Islam]. Originally, Arab nationalists wanted to end the Ottoman domination of Arab lands; then, after the Ottoman Empire was dissolved in 1918, they wanted the end of all Western presence in the Arab world…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

                                                           

Contents                                               

 

On Topic

 

Canadian Jihadist Unmasked: Stewart Bell, National Post, Sept., 2014—Adept at using social media and fluent in English, Abu Turaab is part of the new generation of jihadists who have stormed the Internet to spread the dark message of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham.

The I-Word: Rex Murphy, National Post, Aug. 23, 2014—“What’s in a name?” That famous question came from the mouth of Shakespeare’s Juliet Capulet while under her rhapsodic infatuation with Romeo Montague.

What The "Two State Solution" Has to Do with the Rise of Islamic Extremism: Zero: Khaled Abu Toameh, Gatestone Institute, Oct. 20, 2014—U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's claim that the lack of a "two-state solution" has fueled the rise of the Islamic State [IS] terrorist group reinforces how clueless the U.S. Administration is about what is happening in the Arab and Islamic countries.

You Can’t Reform Islam Without Reforming Muslims: Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage, Oct. 21, 2014—Every few years the debate over reforming Islam bubbles up from the depths of a culture that largely censors any suggestion that Islam needs reforming.

 

 

 

 

               

 

 

 

                      

                

                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Contents:         

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

 

 

Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org

Canadian Muslims: A Plea to West

 

Canadian Muslims: A Plea to West

Raheel Raza and Salim Mansur

Clarion Project, Apr. 24, 2013

http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/canadian-muslims-plea-west

 

The recent discovery of terrorist plot to do a mass terror attack on a Via Rail passenger train out of Toronto by two Islamists, and their intent interdicted by joint Canadian and U.S. security agencies, eerily followed the hunt and capture of the two Chechen brothers — Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev — involved in carrying out the Boston bombing.

 

The arrests of Chiheb Esseghaier, a 30-year old Tunisian studying in Montreal, and Raed Jaser, a 35-year old Palestinian landed immigrant resident in Toronto, for plotting the terror attacks on Via Rail, were preceded by reports of two Canadians (Ali Medlej and Xristos Katsiroubas, a Muslim convert) involved in the terrorist attacks on an Algerian gas plant deep inside the Sahara desert on the Algeria-Libya border. The two were killed by security forces, while a third Canadian (Aaron Yoon, a Muslim convert) is being held in a Mauritanian prison as a suspected terrorist.

 

There was also report of a recent suicide bombing carried out in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, in which a Canadian (Mahad Ali Dhore) of Somali origin, and a former student at York University in Toronto, was identified as one of the suicide bombers.

 

These stories confirm the pattern of penetration by Islamists into the West for executing mass terror attacks, as were the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, the Madrid train bombings in 2004 and the home grown Islamist terrorists attacks on the London public transit system in 2005.

 

There have also been failed plots, as in the case of the New York Times Square bombing attempt by Faisal Shahzad, an American resident of Pakistani origin, in May 2010, or the foiled plan of the Toronto 18 to carry out a series of mass terror attacks in southern Ontario in 2006.

 

Since 9/11 many Muslims around the world, including those who belong to Muslims Facing Tomorrow in Canada, have been warning our compatriots of the nature of Islamist threat worldwide, of the extent to which Islamism is a virulent ideology of warfare (jihad) and a radical reorientation of Muslim societies to comply with Sharia that repudiates modernity in all its form. This ideology has brought death and devastation within the Muslim and non-Muslim world.

 

The West needs to take seriously the war declared by Islamists against infidels, Zionists, Israelis and Muslims opposed to Islamism.

 

Islamism is an aberrant strain of Muslim thinking that can be traced back in Arab-Muslim history to the earliest years of Islam. Its defining characteristic is intolerance of others, including Muslims, and glorification of violence as a martyrdom exercise against all who disagree with Islamist rendition of Islam.

 

This aberrant thinking in pre-modern times was kept in check — with force when necessary — by Muslim rulers. But with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in World War One, this ideology was espoused by a marginal sectarian movement inside Arabia when the Wahhabis (with the Saudi tribe at its head) captured power and established the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1926.

 

The success of the House of Saud came about in part with the support of Britain (the great power with imperial interests in the region). Later, this desert monarchy was embraced by the United States.

 

Wahhabism is the foster-mother of modern day Islamism; the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is its citadel. Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi citizen, a multi-millionaire and a fanatic adherent of the Wahhabi creed.

 

The twentieth century founders of Islamist ideology were two Egyptians, Hasan al-Banna (1906-49) and Syed Qutb (1906-66), and the Indo-Pakistani Abul A’la Mawdudi (1903-79). Wahhabism was a small, thoroughly marginal and derided sect within the mainstream majority Sunni Muslim population until the House of Saud made it the dominant power-holder and expression of Islam by its control of the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

 

With the largesse of oil money at its disposal and the security arrangements provided to it by the Western powers, especially the United States, Wahhabism and the Islamist ideology of the three Sunni ideologues (al-Banna, Qutb and Mawdudi) were fused by Saudi petrodollars for export.

 

It is estimated that over $70 billion have been doled out by the Saudi government agencies and private citizens in funding mosque constructions across the Muslim world and in the West, and in financing Muslim organizations and youth clubs that spread Islamist ideology.

 

The result has been one of the most successful efforts to infect this virus within the Muslim world and beyond.

 

Muslim population of Arabic-speaking countries of the Middle East and North Africa together is less than a fifth of the global Muslim population, yet it is the Arab version of Islam, principally the Wahhabi Islam of Saudi Arabia that is the source of the rise of Islamism and the threat it poses to the West, while bringing ruin to Muslim societies.

 

Wahhabism also now dominates Sunni Islam, in general, through funding of leading Sunni institutions (Al-Azhar University in Cairo) and political movements (the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by al-Banna, and Jamaat-i-Islami founded by Mawdudi).

 

Petrodollars now spread Wahhabism in South Asia, Central Asia, the Caucasus (Chechnya), the Balkans (Bosnia and Kosovo), Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. And, its most fanatical face can be found in the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

In the Middle East the rivalry between Wahhabism and Khomeinism is represented by the competing interests and hostilities of the Sunni powers, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates, on the one side, and Iran with its Syrian  Alawite allies as well as the Lebanese Shi’i supporters of Hezbollah.

 

The Shi’ite version of Islamism is Khomeinism, the ruling ideology of the Islamic Republic of Iran since 1979. (Islam has been historically divided between the majority Sunni Muslims and the minority Shi’i Muslims, who are estimated to be less than 15 percent of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslim population.)

 

It is this rivalry in part that finds expression in the virulence against Israel and support for Palestinian extremist and radical politics emanating out of Tehran and the capitals of the Sunni Muslim states in the region.

 

It was inevitable that the upheaval inside the Muslim world would spill over into the West and elsewhere. The attack upon New York City in 2001 should have been a wake-up call for the West to take appropriate measures to nip the threat of Islamist terror.

 

 

The recent events relating to “home grown” Islamist terror are indicative of the extent to which the United States and Canada have underrated Islamism as war against the West.

 

As Muslims in Canada, we have repeatedly called upon our fellow Muslims to publicly disavow all relationships with Islamists and Islamism, to repudiate unconditionally the aberrant thinking and teachings of Wahhabism (and its related schools among Sunni Muslims) and Khomeinism and to cooperate — without any hesitation — with law enforcement and security agencies of our home country, Canada.

 

But our voice will not carry weight unless and until our government, our political parties and politicians at all levels of government — federal, provincial and municipal — take seriously the Islamist threat and denounce Islamism without any inhibition or equivocation.

 

We cannot any longer afford to allow our mainstream media, our educational institutions and our civil society associations to wallow in political correctness and, intentionally or not, give cover to the Islamists in our midst through public relation exercises, such as inter-faith dialogue.

 

As Muslims we understand much more than anyone else how multiculturalism has become a cover for Islamist penetration of the West. As Muslims, we have the inside knowledge of the extent to which Wahhabi teachings and Islamism have together undermined what was once a rich and tolerant culture within Islam.We recognize that after decades of Wahhabi subversion, this sounds apologetic and quaint.

 

Moreover, as Muslims, we found ourselves accepted in the West with immense generosity, kindness and without any discrimination by the majority of the population. Many of us carry deep physical and psychological wounds of bigotry and violence directed against us as Muslims by other Muslims driven to fanaticism by Wahhabi and Islamist teachings. As survivors of Muslim violence against Muslims, our gratitude in finding refuge and a new home in Canada and elsewhere in the West is immeasurable.

 

Our concern about the West’s security from Islamist threats is derived from experience. We, therefore, as Muslims urge the authorities in Canada, in the United States and in Europe, to take robust measures against those who have declared war against the West and those who directly or indirectly assist this warfare.

 

Only when it becomes certain that the West will not any longer tolerate the preaching and practice of Islamism will we witness increasing numbers of Muslims stepping forward publicly to repudiate those imams and religious leaders in our mosques and mosque-related institutions who have been instrumental in pushing Islamism among Muslim youth and radicalizing them for jihad or mass terrorist operations.

 

Sadly, although it is human nature, fear is an intangible reality that is holding the majority of Muslims in the West back instead of taking responsibility to spear-head the drive to defeat Islamism.

 

But this fear is also grounded upon the undeniable fact that the West has long embraced Saudi Arabia, continues to cultivate links with countries such as Egypt and Pakistan that are hotbeds of Islamism and has not shown the determination to contain and defeat Islamism as it once did in bringing about the defeat of Communism.

 

Finally, as Muslims in the West, we want to advise our compatriots that the Muslim world is presently in an upheaval of historic proportion, as Europe once was as Christendom was in the transition from the pre-modern to the modern world of liberal and secular values.

 

The internal struggle among Muslims will likely continue over several generations as the Muslim world painfully makes its transition. But the support of the West can be decisive in hastening this transition, and this can only occur when the Western public understands what is at stake and how it can make a positive difference.

 

The weeding out of Islamism and the Islamist threat lodged inside the West is the essential prerequisite – or first step — in defeating the global warfare or jihad of Islamists and in helping the Muslim world reconcile itself with modern values of science, democracy and human rights.

 

Raheel Raza is President and Salim Mansur is Vice President of the Council of Muslims Facing Tomorrow, Canada.